tagged w/ GM Crops
-
Corporate monopoly over our food systems is a food security disaster. And while in some places like India these disasters have already had an impact at a global level, they are a disaster in the making.
It is therefore unscientific, illogical and irresponsible for the Environmental Minister Mr Woolas to say that Prince Charles must provide "proof" that a disaster has happened.
I would imagine that he is aware of the environmental principle on which the UN Convention on Biological Diversity and the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change rest.
The principle is called the Precautionary Principle. It is based on the recognition that when an activity or technology has the potential to cause harm, and there is no conclusive evidence to establish the harm that can be caused, then policy and decision making must err on the side of caution.
The Environment Minister also said "Government ministers have a responsibility to base policy on science and I do strongly believe that we have a moral responsibility to the developing world to ask the question: 'Can GM crops help'?
Minister, if you could travel with me through Vidarbha and see the tears in the eyes of farmers' widows, you would be compelled to ask the question:'Can GM crops harm'? That is your moral responsibility.
It is also your responsibility to sincerely base your decisions on real science, not pseudo science. Science based policy would recognise that an agriculture that conserves biodiversity also produces more food and nutrition per unit acre.
Science based policy would recognise that if farmers fall into debt, it is not an instrument for ending poverty, but a recipe for ending the lives of small farmers.
A science based policy would not blindly spread GM crops to Africa without assessing their role in India's agrarian crisis. A science based policy would not be based on unscientific principle of "substantial equivalence" which has prevented independent and serious testing of GM foods and crops.
That is why the Supreme Court of India has served notice on the Government of India to ask why a GMO moratorium should not be imposed till proper testing protocols and tests and facilities for biosafety are in place.
end of excerpt.
``~~~
Dr. Vandana Shiva is one of the most passionate and knowledgable scholars and environmental activists on the topic of GM foods, the global water crisis, Monsanto ( bio technology), sustainability, and environmental democracy. I trust her words and her judgement on this implicitly as I too have done the research. The world needs to listen to and read her words as she speaks truth about the monopoly taking form to control both our food and water in the guise of companies stating they are pushing GM organisms on us for our own benefit, when it is really for their own.
GM foods and the poisons sprayed on them that are in our water and food are not sustainable and will not save this world from a food crisis, but may well perpetuate it especially in areas of severe drought. We have all the conventional food we need to feed this world save political corruption (World Bank) and those in power looking to deny it to those who need it most to suit their own political, economic, and ideological agendas. I hold Dr. Shiva in the highest esteem and take her word on this based on her years of experience over anyone looking to defend the monstrous crime being perpetrated by these biocompanies on our environment and our health.Corporate monopoly over our food systems is a food security disaster. And while in... more
-
-
by Dr. Mae-Wan Ho and Prof. Joe Cummins
Preliminary findings suggest a link between Morgellons Disease and Agrobacterium, a soil bacterium extensively manipulated and used in making GM crops; has genetic engineering created a new epidemic?
CDC launch investigation on Morgellons’ Disease
The Centers for Disease Control (CDC) in the United States announced the launch of an investigation on ‘Morgellons Disease’ in January 2008, after receiving thousands of complaints from people with this bewildering condition, which it describes as follows: “Persons who suffer from this unexplained skin condition report a range of cutaneous (skin) symptoms including crawling, biting and stinging sensations; granules, threads, fibers, or black speck-like materials on or beneath the skin, and/or skin lesions (e.g., rashes or sores). In addition to skin manifestations, some sufferers also report fatigue, mental confusion, short term memory loss, joint pain, and changes in visions.”
Morgellons Disease first became known in 2001, when Mary Leitao created a web site describing the illness in her young son, which she named after a 17th century medical study in France describing similar symptoms. Until then, people with Morgellons Disease have been diagnosed as cases of “delusional parasitosis”, in which the symptoms are deemed entirely imaginary, and lesions allegedly due to self-inflicted wounds.
Indeed, the debate over Morgellons Disease has continued in the pages of medical and scientific journals right up to the CDC’s announcement.
Dr. Michele Pearson, principal investigator for the CDC said that the primary goals of the study are “to learn more about who may be affected with this condition, the symptoms they experience and to look for clues about factors that might contribute to the condition,” adding that the condition is “complex”, and “may be due to multiple factors.”
In response to questions from journalists at the CDC press conference, Pearson said:
“We are aware that many patients have suffered from this condition. And, I can tell you that here at CDC, we have really been seeing an increasing number of these reports over the past year or so.”
CDC’s investigation is to be carried out in conjunction with Kaiser Permanente’s Northern California Division of Research and the US Armed Forces Institute of Pathology.
Dr. Joe Selby, Director of the Kaiser Permanente’s Northern California Division of Research, said the study would proceed in three stages. In the first stage, they will identify all members who may have seen a Kaiser Permanente physician with symptoms suggestive of this condition at any point during the 18 months between July 1 2006 and December 31, 2007, and determine whether they meet eligibility criteria for the study. In stage two, all eligible members will be invited to complete a comprehensive web based or telephone survey conducted by the CDC that examines the duration and severity of a variety of symptoms. And in stage three, those with active symptoms will be invited to the division of research for an extensive clinical examination including collection of skin biopsies, blood and urine samples.
* * * * *
Much more at link.by Dr. Mae-Wan Ho and Prof. Joe Cummins
Preliminary findings suggest a link between... more
-
-
Never underestimate the power of a few committed people to change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has."
-- Anthropologist Margaret Mead
Even if you've heard the above quote many times before, the sentiment expressed is so powerful that I think it's worth repeating. All around the world, small groups of people are organizing public support for improved food safety and successfully challenging large corporations to change their behavior.
That's exactly what Flint Michigan residents Kathleen Kirby and Mark Fisher are banking on: their power to influence change. They're participating in a nationwide consumer boycott of Kellogg's Co. instigated by the Organic Consumers Association. By boycotting the world's largest cereal company, they hope to pressure Kellogg's into rejecting the use of sugar from genetically engineered (GE) sugar beets and to spark widespread market rejection in products ranging from cereal to baby food to candy.
As you may know, Roundup Ready sugar beets are genetically altered to resist Monsanto's toxic weed killer, Roundup, and its active ingredient, glyphosate. But here's the scary truth about these beets:
When the USDA first approved GE sugar beets for commercial planting in 1998, the EPA also increased the maximum allowable residues of glyphosate on sugar beet roots from just 0.2 parts per million to 10ppm. That's a staggering 5,000 percent increase of allowable toxins on beet roots. And, it's little surprise that EPA made this policy change at the request of Monsanto.
Sugar beet roots contain sucrose that's extracted, refined, and processed into the sugar used in the foods we eat. What this means is that the more GE ingredients that find their way into our food, the greater the likelihood that we are ingesting more toxic chemicals.
Thankfully, GE sugar beets have never been grown in the U.S. for sale to food manufacturers -- that is, until this year, when Western farmers planted their first crop of Monsanto's Roundup Ready sugar beets. Right now, over half of the sugar used in U.S. processed foods comes from sugar beets, with beet and cane sugars combined in those products. What's most disturbing is that once GE sugar beets hit the market, which could be as early as next year, there will be no way to know if we're eating GE sugar because GE ingredients are not labeled.
Currently, only four major GE crops are sold commercially -- corn, cotton, soy, and canola. Most of these are engineered to withstand repeated, large doses of herbicides. For the most part, these crops and their byproducts are largely fed to animals with the exception of some minor food ingredients and oils. GE beet sugar breaks with this tradition in that it could become the first major GE ingredient added to almost all processed foods on our grocery store shelves.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Our food supply is systematically being taken over and poisoned by Monsanto.There is no other way to state it now. If sugarbeets are allowed to continue to become a part of our food supply, then you can expect that EVERYTHING you touch will be genetically modified, and it has NOT been proven to be safe for human consumption or our environment. Please, I have been writing on this for months along with others who have been trying to make people understand how URGENT it is that you get involved in pushing state legislatures to require proper labelling of GM sources in foods. Read up on this at the Monsanto tag and take action.
Citizen activism is the only way to make companies like Monsanto back down. Consumers did it regarding POSILAC, and we can do it with this. Current TV is the only place I have been able to get exposure to this so far aside from my own blog, and it is also because of people here voting the information up so more can see it. So thank you to those who fight the good fight here everyday over those who would do anything in their power to keep this down.
Never underestimate the power of a few committed people to change the world. Indeed,... more
-
-
No evidence that GM crops will solve the food and fuel crisis
Most of the EU's animal feed comes from Brazil and Argentina, which are careful to grow only those varieties of feed, both GM and non-GM, that are approved in the EU, so as not to harm their export markets [10]. An article in the Financial Times quotes a Brazilian diplomatic source saying, 'We produce to satisfy our clients. We are not going to produce something they are not going to buy.' The article goes on to say that neither Argentina nor Brazil share the apocalyptic scenario currently being put forward by the biotech and livestock industries and intensive farmers [11].
Such scaremongering ignores the well-known fact that GM crops have at best, variable impacts on yields and are therefore not a solution to the food crisis, as was confirmed by the recent IAASTD (International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development) report on the future of agriculture [12].
More importantly, it ignores the fact that the major cause of the food and feed crisis is not European GM policy, but the rush to biofuels. Even the World Bank has now confirmed what NGOs have been saying ever since the notion of a food crisis was first mooted, that the Bush-subsidised ethanol boom (with the EU's agrofuel boom following in its wake) is by far the single most important factor in creating the food crisis that is driving 100m people worldwide below the poverty line. The report, which has not been published but was leaked to the UK's Guardian newspaper, says biofuels have forced global food prices up by 75 percent. The figure emphatically contradicts the US government's claims that plant-derived fuels contribute less than 3 percent to food-price rises. Senior development sources believe the report, completed in April, has not been published to avoid embarrassing President George W. Bush [13].
The irony is that exactly the same people who created this disaster by promoting the rush into agrofuels are now promoting a rush for GMOs as the solution. It is this hype that the European Commission and British politicians appear to be swallowing, without being honest about the vested interests at stake.
Monsanto does a complete about-turn on GMOs being needed to feed the world
And here's another irony. The truth about GMOs as the solution to the global food crisis is not coming from politicians but from industry itself. Previously, in the face of growing global opposition, Monsanto has long proclaimed that GM crops are vital for feeding a hungry world, while critics countered that the food is there and that distribution is the key to tackling hunger. But as opposition to biofuels is rising in Europe and even in the US on the grounds that they are not a solution to climate change and are contributing to the food crisis, Monsanto is now keen to defend the biofuels gravy-train that sent food prices sky-rocketing, and the company's spin has suddenly gone into complete reverse.
The ethanol boom may be pushing millions towards starvation and hundreds of millions deeper into poverty, but, says Monsanto's chief technology officer Rob Fraley [14], "From a production perspective, we have abundance [of food]". Fraley now says the "challenges" are in distribution and access to food because of wealth distribution, in other words, poverty.
Fraley made his pitch at the launch of a new multi-million dollar lobby group for ethanol, the Alliance for Abundant Food and Energy, that Monsanto has helped set up. There could be no clearer demonstration that Monsanto's concern has never been feeding the hungry; its leading role in the ethanol lobby shows that the hungry can happily starve, just so long as it's good for the company's bottom line.
Given that industry has revealed the truth behind its biofuels agenda, is it too much to ask of Europe's politicians that they should be equally honest about the vested interests behind the hyping of GM crops?
No evidence that GM crops will solve the food and fuel crisis
Most of the EU's... more
-
-
Monsanto doesn't want anything to do with French investigative journalist Marie-Monique Robin.
The American biotechnology and herbicide-producing giant wouldn't co-operate with Robin in her three years researching her highly critical documentary The World According to Monsanto and her accompanying, French-language bestseller (with an English translation on the way).
Now that her film is being shown in more and more countries, and advocacy groups are featuring clips of the documentary on their websites, Monsanto still hasn't called Robin.
To many viewers, the company's "no comment" may appear to be damning in itself, given the litany of accusations made against Monsanto by farmers, scientists, watchdog groups, health and agriculture advocates.
Googling for seeds of truth
The documentary shows farmers alleging that Monsanto - a leader in developing genetically modified seed and herbicides - has pitted farmer against farmer, encouraging them to rat on anyone suspected of not buying new Monsanto seed each year. It shows agricultural experts alleging genetically modified corn has invaded indigenous Mexican corn, with monstrous varieties being found. And advocates in India alleging that cotton farmers sometimes commit suicide owing to their dependence on genetically modified crops and the risk of low harvests. The list of accusations goes on.
A spokeswoman from Monsanto Canada, however, did respond to calls for this article. "Any of the allegations that have been made in the movie have been responded to publicly on our website," spokeswoman Trish Jordan said. A segment on the company's website labelled For the Record, she explained, "basically responds to some of the common allegations that are dredged up by activists. And I think that would probably give you our position on most, if not everything, in her documentary."
The film does refer to the website, and the explanations used by Monsanto in response to various criticisms.
Still, Robin said she was astonished by what she found when making the film. "Yes, I was very surprised. It's very difficult to understand how they manage - what they called in the U.S. the revolving door," she said. By this, she means the way in which government officials and elected leaders have often worked for corporations such as Monsanto, only to later pass regulations while in office favouring their former employers.
It was also difficult to get people to talk. "It's very difficult," Robin said, whether officials within regulatory agencies, scientists or other journalists. She said that one regulatory insider told her they didn't want to have any problems with the company, since it's so powerful.
The World According to Monsanto is as disturbing as any Hollywood thriller. Robin's next documentaries will likely be just as heavy, with a film on the U.S. military's use of what many see as torture during interrogations and a documentary on environmental causes of cancer.
So what drives Robin to investigate such dire topics?
"I have three daughters at home," she said, "and I think when I'm doing this kind of documentary, it's for my daughters. ... With what's going on with GMOs [genetically modified organisms] and what it means, in 20 years, if we don't react, it's very worrisome."
Aug.1,2008Monsanto doesn't want anything to do with French investigative journalist... more
-
-
Barack Obama's vice presidential search team had begun floating the name of former Secretary of Agriculture Ann Veneman, one of George Bush's most loyal lieutenants, as a possible running-mate on the 2008 Democratic ticket.
What the Obama camp is doing is clear enough. They are signaling that the candidate might consider a bipartisan "unity" ticket. That's reasonable, as long as the Republican has some record of taking stands that might by some reasonable stretch of the imagination be considered breaks with Republican orthodoxy. Of course, Nebraska Senator Chuck Hagel, an edgier critic of the Bush administration's foreign policies than most Democrats who recently traveled with Obama to Afghanistan and Iraq, tops most lists of cross-over contenders.
Former Iowa Congressman Jim Leach, a determined internationalist who like Obama opposed attacking Iraq and generally served as a moderate (some would even say "liberal") Republican, would fit the bill.
Maybe someone like former Rhode Island Senator Lincoln Chafee, a steadfast Iraq War foe who has endorsed Obama, would find a place on a list of possible running mates.
Perhaps former U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations John Danforth, who was no liberal when he served as a senator from Missouri but who is universally recognized as an honorable and realistic political player, would fit the bill.
But Ann Veneman?
Veneman would be a uniquely awful choice.
All of her political roots are in California -- where her father was a prominent ally of Ronald Reagan -- a state Obama will win with or without her in November.
Veneman is not trusted by farm and rural folk, so it would be ridiculous to think that adding her to the ticket would help in Midwestern and Plains states that might be in play this fall. In fact, this uniquely un-charismatic bureaucrat who has never held elective office was booed on visits to farm country when she served as Bush's Secretary of Agriculture.
And Veneman, whose background was as a corporate lawyer specializing in trade issues, was known to organized labor as one the most militant advocates for free trade in a militantly pro-free trade Bush administration.
In sum, it is hard to imagine a worse Republican to put on a Democratic ticket.
When Veneman first entered the national spotlight in 2001, I penned an assessment of her record for The Nation.
It was titled "No Friend of the Farmer" and read:
~~~~~~~~~~
I surely hope this is NOT true. If it is and it ever happened, NO WAY he would get my vote. Just what is his "search team" smoking? Proof positive this process is not about principle for her name to even be on the list.Barack Obama's vice presidential search team had begun floating the name of... more
-
-
Bt cotton was engineered to combat pests, with the introduction into the cotton seed of a gene from a soil bacterium called Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt), which has a natural insect-killing poison called Bt-toxin. When it was introduced into India at the turn of the century, it was promoted as the "wonder product" that would solve the serious problem of pests, which many of India's 17 million cotton farmers were facing.
Many of the farmers had not been growing cotton as a cash crop for very long. In the late 1980s, under pressure from the International Monetary Fund, India had opened up its strongly protected economy and encouraged its farmers to switch to modern farming, with its hybrid seeds, fertilisers and pesticides. The idea was to turn India into an important exporter of commodities, including cotton.
At first, cotton farmers did well. They got high yields and enjoyed a real increase in income. But then problems arose. The hybrid cotton proved susceptible to pests and diseases, and it was not uncommon for farmers to spray their fields up to 30 times in a single season. Production costs went through the roof and farmers got trapped in debt. They became desperate for a technical fix, and Bt cotton seemed to be the answer.
In its first year of sales, Mahyco-Monsanto sold its entire stock of Bt cotton. According to the company, the area in India under Bt cotton rose from 3.1m acres in 2005 to 14.4m acres in 2007. According to Sekhar Natarajan, regional leader of Monsanto India, Bt cotton yielded 700kg-900kg per acre, compared with 300kg-400kg an acre with conventional seeds.
However, some say that what has been happening on the ground has been very different from the official success story. Scientists Abdul Qayum and Kiran Sakhari assessed Bt cotton's performance in the first three years and found that, despite claims by the company, farmers were not achieving big yields. This perhaps was to be expected, because Bt cotton had been engineered to reduce pesticide use, not to increase yields. But, more surprisingly, they found that pesticide use was not falling either, because farmers were facing serious problems with secondary pests. They worked out that, on average, the income of non-Bt farmers was 60% higher than that of Bt farmers. Monsanto contests these numbers.
There have been other, more alarming problems. In her chat with the visiting farmers, Sattemma says she had seen several of her neighbour's goats die after spending all day grazing on post-harvest Bt cotton plants. Such a story could be dismissed as anecdotal, if it were not backed up by more solid evidence. In 2006, more than 1,800 sheep died in similar circumstances in other villages in Warangal district. The symptoms and post-mortem findings suggested that they had died from severe toxicity. Hundreds of agricultural workers had also developed allergic symptoms when exposed to Bt cotton.
Bt cotton was engineered to combat pests, with the introduction into the cotton seed... more
-
-
For more than a century, farms have been getting bigger while seeds, fertilization and pest control have been getting more uniform. Led by farm suppliers, it has raised productivity. But negative byproducts of this trend include increasing chemical dependence and loss of biodiversity. Ecofeminist Vandana Shiva is at the Organic World Congress to protest the human and environmental cost of monoculture. The pendulum may be swinging back her way as consumer preference (among "locavores") for locally grown food and organic food increases, as the public becomes more aware of the impact of chemicals on the environment, and as higher petroleum prices result in pricier fertilizers and pesticides.
Vandana is one of the speakers at the opening ceremony of the Organic World Congress in Modena's large Piazza Grande, which fills the center of the city behind the famed (Michelin three-starred) Romanesque Duomo, shown below earlier in the day as the seats were being set up.
An eloquent defender of the property rights of small farms in India and other countries, Vandana has devoted much of her life to research on the effects of loss of biodiversity resulting from monoculture and has allied herself with the Slow Food Movement. Her books include The Violence of the Green Revolution and Monocultures of the Mind. She decided that science was not serving the interests of small farmers, so she left the academic world and formed her own organization, Navdanya.
Because she associates monoculture with a masculine wish to dominate -- and sees it as threatening both small farmers and biodiversity in the name of temporarily higher productivity -- Vandana has been called an ecofeminist, a term attributed to the late Francoise d'Eaubonne describing someone resistant to abuse of either women or mother nature, and adds in empathy for the small farmer in developing countries.
Small-farm consolidation continues, as was highlighted in South Africa just this week. The Valley Trust has for years been working with rural communities to provide health and other services and support organic farms. It has recently broken ranks with the South African Department of Agriculture for its pressure on small-scale farmers to join cooperatives. Small farmers are promised financial help, farm equipment, water piping and free seeds in return for joining the larger farming unit. The catch is that the small farmer must plant genetically modified seeds, which create farmer dependence on commercial monoculture. The director of Biowatch, an NGO promoting alternatives to GMO farming, says: "In the end, most farmers end up in huge debt, because they can't save seeds and are obliged to buy the matching GM fertilizers and pesticides" .
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Dr. Shiva was nominated for the Nobel Prize in 2005. I think she should be nominated again and win in this year for her work to sow seeds of hope and peace in place of the seeds of deception and environmental destruction that have been planted by Monsanto.
For more than a century, farms have been getting bigger while seeds, fertilization and... more
-
-
'The Coalition For GM-Free India', representing farmers' unions and civil society organisations today sought scrapping of the National Biotechnology Regulatory Bill-2008 pleading that 'its provisions are unscientific, undemocratic and amenable to reduce Indians as 'guinea pigs' for the promotion of Genetically Modified (GM) crops and GM foods.'
The Bill envisages setting up a National Biotechnology Regulatory Authority (NBRA) for ensuring a 'single widow' provision for speedy clearance of GM organisms and products. Such fast clearance mechanism is being put in place to facilitate the approval and propogation in India of GM organisms and products being developed by Monsanto and multinational companies, said a communique issued by the farmer leaders and experts from civil societies network after a-day-long deliberations here.
Being hurriedly pushed through, the Bill fixes a deadline for public feedback on July 30 to circumvent any worthwhile discussion organised in public domain by scientific community or arranged by the Department of Biotechnology (DGT), which has mooted the Bill, said Dr Devinder Sharma, a noted food and trade policy analyst.
''The proposed mechanism is an express clearing house for fast track approvals in favour of the biotech industry, at the expense of health and environment requisites,'' he added.
The NBRA proposals have been drawn up by the wrong people for the wrong reasons with the wrong perspectives, said Mr Yudhvir Singh, a leader of the Bharatiya Kisan Union. And the proposed Authority , he said, ''Denies and violates constitutional rights of the states on their agriculture and citizens rights to remain GM-free.'' This also creates a hurdle to progressive decisions made by the states including Kerala on implementating organic farming policies to protect farmers interests and imposes GM crops everywhere, Mr Singh said.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Firstly, I just want to state that in response to the thread I posted this past weekend regarding paid shills or others voting these threads down to hide them... if there are, you lose. I am not going to be intimidated to stop reporting on this important issue for our very survival. What is being done in India as well as around the world by these biotech companies regarding GM crops is a travesty of Democracy and morality. I will not leave this or any site, especially current.com that gives me the chance to have this information dessiminated to people to hopefully effect change. Vote it down if you wish, but the information and truth of it will remain the same as will my resolve to report this information regardless.
Monsanto is an evil company that is preying upon developing countries as well as our own to shove these GM seeds down the throats of farmers already living in poverty. They will continue to deny them their Democratic right to liberty and our right to proper disclosure all in the name of profit at the expense of our global environment. It is companies like Monsanto that are raising food prices in collusion with the World Bank and WTO to push these seeds as well as privitizing water supplies, and it is companies like Monsanto that must be fought by informed consumers.
We have the right to know what is in our food, where our water comes from, and the right to say NO to any attempt to force these fake toxic foods upon us. If there is any way I and others here can effect that change, then I am going to continue to do it.
Thanks to all who responded in the other thread and also to the staff who explained the situation. Hopefully we will see a resolution. Current has a chance to be a true vanguard network for the people. I am grateful to have the chance to be a part of that.'The Coalition For GM-Free India', representing farmers' unions and... more
-
-
Monsanto, best known today for its agricultural biotechnology products, has a long and dirty history of polluting this country and others with some of the most toxic compounds known to humankind. From PCBs to Agent Orange to Roundup, we have many reasons to question the motives of this company that claims to be working to reduce environmental destruction and feed the world with its genetically engineered food crops.
Headquartered near St. Louis, Missouri, the Monsanto Chemical Company was founded in 1901. Monsanto became a leading manufacturer of sulfuric acid and other industrial chemicals in the 1920s. In the 1930s, Monsanto began producing polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs). PCBs, widely used as lubricants, hydraulic fluids, cutting oils, waterproof coatings and liquid sealants, are potent carcinogens and have been implicated in reproductive, developmental and immune system disorders.
The world’s center of PCB manufacturing was Monsanto’s plant on the outskirts of East St. Louis, Illinois, which has the highest rate of fetal death and immature births in the state. By 1982, nearby Times Beach, Missouri, was found to be so thoroughly contaminated with dioxin, a by-product of PCB manufacturing, that the government ordered it evacuated. Dioxins are endocrine and immune system disruptors, cause congenital birth defects, reproductive and developmental problems, and increase the incidence of cancer, heart disease and diabetes in laboratory animals.
By the 1940s, Monsanto had begun focusing on plastics and synthetic fabrics like polystyrene (still widely used in food packaging and other consumer products), which is ranked fifth in the EPA’s 1980s listing of chemicals whose production generates the most total hazardous waste.
During World War II, Monsanto played a significant role in the Manhattan Project to develop the atom bomb.
Following the war, Monsanto championed the use of chemical pesticides in agriculture, and began manufacturing the herbicide 2,4,5-T, which contains dioxin. Monsanto has been accused of covering up or failing to report dioxin contamination in a wide range of its products.
The herbicide “Agent Orange,” used by U.S. military forces as a defoliant during the Vietnam War, was a mixture of 2,4,5-T and 2,4-D and had very high concentrations of dioxin. U.S. Vietnam War veterans have suffered from a host of debilitating symptoms attributable to Agent Orange exposure, and since the end of the war an estimated 500,000 Vietnamese children have been born with deformities.
In the 1970s, Monsanto began manufacturing the herbicide Roundup, which has been marketed as a safe, general-purpose herbicide for widespread commercial and consumer use, even though its key ingredient, glyphosate, is a highly toxic poison for animals and humans. In 1997, The New York State Attorney General took Monsanto to court and Monsanto was subsequently forced to stop claiming that Roundup is “biodegradable” and “environmentally friendly.”
Monsanto has been repeatedly fined and ruled against for, among many things, mislabeling containers of Roundup, failing to report health data to EPA, and chemical spills and improper chemical deposition. In 1995, Monsanto ranked fifth among U.S. corporations in EPA’s Toxic Release Inventory, having discharged 37 million pounds of toxic chemicals into the air, land, water and underground.
Since the inception of Plan Colombia in 2000, the US has spent hundreds of millions of dollars in funding aerial sprayings of Monsanto’s Roundup herbicides in Colombia. The Roundup is often applied in concentrations 26 times higher than what is recommended for agricultural use. Additionally, it contains at least one surfactant, Cosmo-Flux 411f, whose ingredients are a trade secret, has never been approved for use in the US, and which quadruples the biological action of the herbicide.
cont...Monsanto, best known today for its agricultural biotechnology products, has a long and... more
-
-
Baphethile Mntambo has been farming organically for the past five years because she knows that avoiding chemicals will in the long-term benefit her yield.
She decided not to plant genetically modified seeds because she has heard that they cannot be saved for the next season and will eventually deplete her soil. But she is not entirely sure how and why.
"I have heard about GMO, but I don't understand what it is exactly," she says. "The only thing I know is that it will cost a lot of money to buy the seeds, the fertiliser and the pesticides."
Mntambo is one of 50 small-scale farmers in the Valley of a Thousand Hills in South Africa's KwaZulu-Natal province who have been taught how to farm organically by non-governmental organisation Valley Trust. The farmers learn to plant seasonal crops that will provide their families both with food security and an opportunity to generate income by selling their produce at local markets.
"We decided to promote organic farming to create sustainability for small-scale farmers. We believe it is the only way to give them food sovereignty and stability," explains Valley Trust food security facilitator Nhlanhla Vezi.
The Valley Trust used to cooperate with the Department of Agriculture, according to Vezi, but the collaboration ceased when the department started to put pressure on small-scale farmers to form cooperatives if they wanted its support. "The Department makes very attractive offers to provide farming equipment, water piping and seeds, but then uses this as a strategy to push GMO because of agreements they have signed with multinational GM seed patent holders," says Vezi.
Rural farmers are often lured into planting GM seeds by the Department of Agriculture by promises of substantial bank loans and the prospect of huge earnings, agrees Lesley Liddell, director of Biowatch, an NGO promoting alternatives to GMO farming by encouraging farmers to inter-crop, use natural fertilisers and non-chemical crops. "But in the end, most farmers end up in huge debt, because they can't save seeds and are obliged to buy the matching GM fertilisers and pesticides."
Yet, small-scale farmers are often so desperate for financial support that they consider planting GMO crops against better knowledge if they are offered the seeds for free. "I know that GMO is not good in the long run, but if someone gave me these seeds I would still plant them," says Tholani Bhengu, another small-scale farmer who works with the Valley Trust. "For me, the most important thing is to bring food on the table every week. I can't afford to think now about what will happen next year."
Because small-scale farmers in rural Africa often have little or no formal education, they are generally unable to make informed choices around GMO farming. "We encourage them to attend portfolio committees that discuss GMO regulations, but the farmers' knowledge is very limited, so it's difficult for them to contribute. They understand the issues but not the legislation," says Liddell.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
That last quoted paragraph is exactly why these small scale farmers are the targets of multinationals like Monsanto. And as well in South Africa, mandatory labelling is not required.
They are using the poverty these farmers live in as a way to force them into planting GM crap... and when their GM crops fail because of drought or cross contamination, no one is there to bail them out and they have to rebuy seed and "herbicide" again if they wish to plant as they get deeper in debt while Monsanto and other companies reap the benefits.
Insidious.Baphethile Mntambo has been farming organically for the past five years because she... more
-
-
Health scientists have accused CSIRO Plant Industry Deputy TJ Higgins of making innacurate claims, following a CSIRO campaign urging Australian chefs not to boycott genetically modified (GM) food products.
As reported in last week’s Crikey, Higgins wrote on CSIRO letterhead to more than 50 chefs who had signed Greenpeace's GM-free Chef's Charter. But his letter campaign has "backfired spectacularly", according to Greenpeace spokesperson Louise Sales, who says health scientists and chefs are angered over public resources being used for pro-GM lobbying.
Sydney restaurateur and cookbook author Holly Davis told Crikey some chefs are "very concerned. I thought that CSIRO was an impartial research organisation."
Dr Higgins, whose promotion of GM foods is strongly supported by Australia’s Chief Scientist Jim Peacock and Victoria’s Chief Scientist Gus Nossal, is CSIRO’s co-inventor of the GM Field Pea, abandoned because toxicologists found it caused immune problems and lung damage in mice.
Does this finding contradict Dr Higgins' assurances to chefs that "independently reviewed tests have not found any connection between health problems and GM"?
No, according to Dr Higgins. In a letter to Crikey, he wrote:
My GM pea research emphasises the effectiveness of case-by-case evaluation of GM plants and the important role science can play in decision-making around the introduction of GM crops. The research does not imply that all GM plants are inherently bad. Food Standards Australia New Zealand undertakes comprehensive evaluation of GM foods to ensure they are safe for human consumption.
But these claims are "simply wrong" says nutritional biochemist and epidemiologist Dr Judy Carman, whom the West Australian government commissioned to undertake independent studies into the safety of GM foods.
Carman told Crikey: "TJ Higgins' GM pea provides a clear example of the failings of our current GM food regulatory regime. The pea failed miserably on all the [independent health] tests conducted.” And despite Higgins' claims, “these tests are not required by our food regulator".
Her assertions are backed by health advocate Dr Kate Clinch-Jones, a director of the Institute for Health and Environment Research, who is concerned that preliminary independent studies, which suggest allergic responses, organ damage and precancerous growth in mice fed GM foods, have not been followed up.
Dr Higgins is also accused of making innacurate claims on two other fronts.
First, his claim to chefs that:
It is untrue to say that GM food has not been tested for human safety. It has, and very widely. These independently reviewed tests have not found any connection between health problems and GM.
This is disputed by toxicologist Dr Aprad Pusztai, who co-authored a study on Higgins' GM Pea.
"There is only one partial clinical study with one GM crop (RR soybean) done in Newcastle and published in 2004," says Pusztai.
This study apparently produced worrying evidence that GM material might survive in the human gut -- a finding which, says Pusztai, is "hardly a resounding confirmation of Dr Higgins' claim. No other human study has been published."
Higgins, as a plant industry scientist, is not qualified to make the claims in his letter campaign to chefs, says Dr Pusztai.
"He has no background or track record in nutritional research and thus he should refrain from making comments on the safety or otherwise of any GM product."
Health scientists have accused CSIRO Plant Industry Deputy TJ Higgins of making... more
-
-
"Two-thirds of restaurants, cafes, pubs and takeaways tested in a Trading Standards swoop in Surrey were found to be breaking the law on GM foods. Officers who visited 56 premises found 37 (66%) were cooking food in oil made from genetically modified soya without labelling the dishes. It is illegal for caterers to use GM ingredients without telling customers.
Trading Standards manager Peter Denard said labelling advice was now being sent to over 2,500 caterers in Surrey. None of those found to be using GM oil illegally was aware of the EU-wide labelling rules, which came into force in 2004, he said. Restaurants using GM oil must state it clearly on their menus or on a prominent notice.
"Consumers have a right to make an informed choice on the type of food they eat, whether it be GM or non-GM," said Councillor David Harmer."
Is the restaurant you eat in using GM foods? You have the right to ask."Two-thirds of restaurants, cafes, pubs and takeaways tested in a Trading... more
-
-
A class-action lawsuit was filed Wednesday by Arkansas rice farmers against Riceland Foods Inc. in Lonoke County Circuit Court that seeks compensatory and punitive damages for the tainted rice that entered the 2006 rice crop.
The contaminated, genetically-engineered rice that got into the crop could not be exported to numerous countries and the price fell.
"While Riceland Foods is a very important corporation in Arkansas, they breached the trust of their farmer members - and that of all rice farmers - by failing to act in a timely and proper manner regarding the tainted rice," said Paul Byrd, managing counsel of the Arkansas office of the Hare Wynn Newell & Newton Law Firm.
"Essentially," Byrd said in a news release, "our case today is based on our belief that Riceland is responsible for the LL62 contamination of non-genetically engineered long-grain rice in Arkansas in 2006; that Riceland, in collaboration with Aventis (previously known as Bayer), tested LL62 rice in such a way as to permit cross-pollination with non-GE long-grain rice; that Riceland, in its collaboration with Aventis, and in its 2000-2001 testing, planting, growing, harvesting, storing, transporting and disposal of LL62 rice, permitted the commingling of LL62 rice with non-GE rice such as to contaminate the 2006 Arkansas long-grain rice crop; and that Riceland was negligent or otherwise legally responsible in its handling of LL62 rice such that the U.S. long-grain rice crop was contaminated by LL62 and GE rice in 2006."
Rice sales are about $2 billion each year, Byrd said, and about 50 percent of the rice grown is exported. Arkansas is the leading rice-producing state in the nation and grows about 60 percent of the long-grain variety.
In 2005 the European Union, he said, bought about $800 million worth of U.S. long-grain rice. With the contamination, plaintiffs were unable to sell all their long-grain crop for the higher price it would have brought if it had not been tainted. A class-action lawsuit was filed Wednesday by Arkansas rice farmers against Riceland... more
-
-
Genetic modification actually cuts the productivity of crops, an authoritative new study shows, undermining repeated claims that a switch to the controversial technology is needed to solve the growing world food crisis.
The study – carried out over the past three years at the University of Kansas in the US grain belt – has found that GM soya produces about 10 per cent less food than its conventional equivalent, contradicting assertions by advocates of the technology that it increases yields.
Professor Barney Gordon, of the university's department of agronomy, said he started the research – reported in the journal Better Crops – because many farmers who had changed over to the GM crop had "noticed that yields are not as high as expected even under optimal conditions". He added: "People were asking the question 'how come I don't get as high a yield as I used to?'"
He grew a Monsanto GM soybean and an almost identical conventional variety in the same field. The modified crop produced only 70 bushels of grain per acre, compared with 77 bushels from the non-GM one.
The GM crop – engineered to resist Monsanto's own weedkiller, Roundup – recovered only when he added extra manganese, leading to suggestions that the modification hindered the crop's take-up of the essential element from the soil. Even with the addition it brought the GM soya's yield to equal that of the conventional one, rather than surpassing it.
The new study confirms earlier research at the University of Nebraska, which found that another Monsanto GM soya produced 6 per cent less than its closest conventional relative, and 11 per cent less than the best non-GM soya available.
The Nebraska study suggested that two factors are at work. First, it takes time to modify a plant and, while this is being done, better conventional ones are being developed. This is acknowledged even by the fervently pro-GM US Department of Agriculture, which has admitted that the time lag could lead to a "decrease" in yields.
But the fact that GM crops did worse than their near-identical non-GM counterparts suggest that a second factor is also at work, and that the very process of modification depresses productivity. The new Kansas study both confirms this and suggests how it is happening.
A similar situation seems to have happened with GM cotton in the US, where the total US crop declined even as GM technology took over.
~~~~~~~~
GM food is not the answer to world hunger. Addressing the cause of hunger is. This is only a profit making scheme for CEOs like Hugh Grant of Monsanto to make over THREE MILLION dollars a year not even counting the hundreds of thousands of shares he has in the company while people continue to starve in the world.
And our own FDA has helped them put something on the market that goes in our bodies and the bodies of our children that was not scientifically vetted and is not labelled on our food. It is time to expose the corporate frauds that seek to control our food and water and send more poor farmers in this country and in Asia, Africa, and South America into debt. Patenting life is immoral as is deceiving the public about what they are eating and devastating our environment.
We need to boycott Monsanto, Cargill, ADM, and any other multinational in the business of profit over people until they are held accountable for their deceptions.Genetic modification actually cuts the productivity of crops, an authoritative new... more
-
-
Serious and extremely worrying evidence indicates that water supplies are steadily being used up. And the causes of water scarcity are much the same as those of the food crisis: demand exceeds a finite supply.
The world's population is projected to grow from 6 billion to 8.5 billion by 2030 and unless we change the way we use water and increase water productivity — ie. produce more 'crop per drop' — we will not be able to feed them. That is the conclusion of the IWMI's recent Comprehensive Assessment of Water Management in Agriculture and its book, Water for Food, Water for Life, which drew on the work of 700 scientists.
end of excerpt.
~~~~~
In all of the time I have been posting to this blog on the subject of water scarcity, this message has been the priority. Investing in water infrastructure and educating people in developing countries regarding irrigation methods that save water as well as planting conventional crop varieties that are not as water intensive. However, even though these are the main goals one of the priorities here as well that was also not mentioned in this article is stopping the commoditization and corporatization of water that keeps it from being used by the people as the human right it is.
I have been reporting recently on Current.com (linked here in the column) about Monsanto and its plan to spread GM foods across the globe. Foods which biotech makeup has been linked to possible health effects not only in humans but in cows through Posilac (Bovine growth hormones) in milk, and the environmental affects on waterways through the use of Roundup Herbicides. It is an insidious plan wherein they are buying up seed companies globally and binding farmers to only plant seeds in one season without permission to replant next season unless they continue to buy seed from Monsanto at a huge profit to the company. Monsanto has even gone so far as to 'patent' seed and pursue litigation against farmers they accuse of replanting seeds (as has been done in agriculture from its inception centuries ago) and even harrassing farmers who are innocent due to pollen from other fields landing on their crops. They are also lobbying state legislatures to not label foods that contain bovine hormones and GM ingredients.
But not only is Monsanto in the business of monopolizing seeds of the world and taking away the consumer's right to know, they are also involved in pursuing the privitization of water. Currently they have such projects in India and Mexico which will bring them millions in revenues.They are cornering the market on food and water in developing countries and in the US and by their methods putting farmers in great debt to the point that they are committing suicide in India due to BT cotton.
Therefore, while other explanations for food and water shortages certainly are relevant and deserving of our utmost attention, stopping multi nationals as well from patenting and stealing life is also one of the most important and crucial environmental and moral fights we will have in this century. For whoever controls the food and water controls the world.
So again, we do have enough food and water to feed and sustain the world if we start now to work on plans for the future that conserve these resources and address overpopulation. We don't need The World Bank to continue to scaremonger about this for profit. We don't need Monsantos to take advantage of us for profit. We need a plan that actually educates people about conservation and effective irrigation and infrastructure, and we need to give farming back to the farmers and water back to the people.Serious and extremely worrying evidence indicates that water supplies are steadily... more
-
-
More than 50 of the country's top chefs have united to protest against the introduction of genetically modified (GM) food crops to Australia.
Last month, GM canola crops were planted for the first time in NSW and Victoria after the two states announced they would let their bans on genetically engineered food crops expire.
In response, local celebrity chefs including Neil Perry and Kylie Kwong have signed on to the GM Free Chefs' Charter, launched in collaboration with Greenpeace in Sydney.
The charter, unveiled at chef Jared Ingersoll's Danks Street Depot restaurant in the inner-city Sydney suburb of Waterloo, calls for the NSW and Victorian governments to reverse their position on growing GM canola and demands thorough labelling of all food products that contain GM ingredients.
Oils, starches and sugars, as well as animal feed derived from GM ingredients, should all come with a label, says the charter, which will be presented to Australian governments later this year.
Meat from animals which have eaten GM feed should also be signposted, it says.
There are currently no laws on the labelling of food containing GM canola.
Speaking at the charter's launch, Mr Ingersoll said the unknown long-term effects of eating GM foods were a major concern to him, both as a chef and a parent.
"I don't really want to put food in the mouth of my children that I'm not sure whether or not it's going to be damaging for them," he said.
"I'm not the sort of person that stands in the way of technology making advancement to make things better for people ... but with genetically modified food, once we go down that path then there's no going back.
"We are in the very unique position of having an amazing countryside that can produce lots of beautiful food and if we do take the path of Canada and other GM nations, it's going to be really limiting as to what direction we go in," he said.
GM food crops are known to be difficult to contain, and a 2001 Western Australian parliamentary inquiry into gene technology found the segregation of GM crops from non-GM crops was not practical and cross-contamination was "inevitable".
More than 50 of the country's top chefs have united to protest against the... more
-
-
The Organization for Competitive Markets and more than 35 farm and citizen groups voiced support for an ongoing antitrust investigation into Monsanto’s suspected anticompetitive practices in the U.S. crop seed industry last week in letters sent to 23 state attorneys general. About a dozen states are already involved in the investigation, including the attorneys general in Iowa and Texas.
“Concentration of market power in the seed industry has grave implications for American farmers,” said Keith Mudd, President of OCM. “Monsanto continues to control the marketplace in seed technologies, especially the corn, soybean, and cotton sectors.”
“We believe the company uses transgenic trait licensing agreements with independent seed companies as a tool to put smaller seed companies at a competitive disadvantage,” continued Mudd. “As a result, farmers and smaller seed companies face higher prices, fewer choices and less innovation in the crop seed marketplace. These companies need access to technology, but under fair and equitable terms.”
The Organization for Competitive Markets (OCM) was joined by the American Corn Growers Association, National Farmers Organization, 10 state Farmers Unions, and dozens of others as signatories on the attorneys general letters.
The price for transgenic seed and glyphosate has skyrocketed, taking millions of dollars from farmers and rural America. Monsanto, however, is making record profits. “Farmers are already struggling with rising fuel and chemical prices, as well as planting problems,” Mudd added. “And now they must contend with higher prices for crop seed with less choice in the market.”
Monsanto maintains a dominant position in the marketplace by acquiring smaller competitors and merging with other companies. Last year, the Department of Justice agreed to allow Monsanto to acquire Delta & Pine Land Company, giving it a 90 percent share of the transgenic cotton seed market.
The company also enters into restrictive licensing agreements with seed dealers that are designed to gain market power, restrict competition, and prevent future innovation and market access by competitors.
“Independent seed companies are essential distribution channels for seed technologies, making up more than a quarter of the market,” said Fred Stokes, OCM’s Executive Director. “We believe Monsanto’s licensing agreements prohibit stacking its transgenic traits with non-Monsanto traits without any scientific reason. Farmers who prefer regional seed companies and their locally adapted varieties can’t access non-Monsanto traits restricted under these contracts. ”
Monsanto is also known to aggressively enforce its licensing agreements through lawsuits that seek to protect its patent rights. At times Monsanto mistakenly targets innocent farmers who undergo undue financial and emotional stress in their effort to avoid costly lawsuits. “Monsanto’s behavior has dramatically altered our rural communities,” Stokes said.
“We hope the state attorneys general will aggressively press this investigation. Control of crop seed must be diverse. This issue is of fundamental importance to the future of American agriculture,” Mudd said. “Farmers and independent seed companies deserve an open and fair seed marketplace. Consumers should not have to shoulder any further increase in food prices.”
The Organization for Competitive Markets and more than 35 farm and citizen groups... more
-
-
An authoritative new study demonstrates that genetically modified crops come very, very short of the yields their makers promised and even guaranteed that they would. This exposes genetic engineering for its imprecisions.
Hopefully, this spells the beginning of the end (may it come hastily) for Monsanto and parallel corporations. An authoritative new study demonstrates that genetically modified crops come very,... more
-
-
"The French documentary, called “The world according to Monsanto” and directed by independent filmmaker Marie-Monique Robin, paints a grim picture of a company with a long track record of environmental crimes and health scandals."
This is a long documentary, but well worth the time spent watching it. In general, genetically modified crops are harmful to the environment as it is, but imposing them along with their accompanying poison "Roundup" on the whole world can have catastrophic and even cataclysmic consequences. These people (giant corporations have the same status as individual people without the same responsibilities as people have, thus cannot be prosecuted nor punished when they break the law or commit mass slaughters and destructions) must at all costs be stopped."The French documentary, called “The world according to Monsanto” and... more
-
