tagged w/ DOW Chemical
-
Last year, India asked the International Olympics Committee (IOC) to discontinue Dow Chemical’s sponsorship of the upcoming London Olympics, citing the American corporation’s links to Union Carbide, the company responsible for the 1984 Bhopal gas leak that killed 2,500 people.
Now Vietnam is calling for Dow to quit the games because of the company’s record in producing the toxic defoliant Agent Orange, writes the Thanh Nien News, an influential newspaper in Ho Chi Minh City.
The United States military used Agent Orange extensively in the Vietnam War. Contained in drums with orange stripes (hence the name), the defoliant was sprayed on farms and forests to deprive the communist North Vietnamese and their allies of food and cover.
The systematic dumping caused death, disease and genetic deformities among millions of Vietnamese, including generations born 40 years after the war ended in 1975. The poison continues to contaminate Vietnam’s ecosystem and food chain, the newspaper reports.
The News says Vietnamese government recently sent a letter to the IOC expressing “profound concerns” about Dow’s involvement in the Olympics, which are due to start in less than two months.
“What is worth condemning is the fact that despite [international opinion], Dow Chemical expressed their indifference and refused compensation for the victims of Agent Orange produced by the company, as well as their responsibility to clean up contaminated areas,” according to the letter.
The paper quotes a Dow spokesman dismissing the letter as “misguided” and wrongly focused,” while the IOC said it carefully studied the history of the company and found it “committed to good corporate citizenship.”
But leftist American political author Noam Chomsky is siding with Vietnam, saying it is “entirely appropriate” for the government to object to Dow’s sponsorship, the paper reports. “The use of Agent Orange was a major war crime. The victims have been largely ignored, another crime,” Chomsky said.
Washington has largely rebuffed efforts to be held responsible for the ill effects of Agent Orange in Vietnam, though the U.S. government has promised to help clean up contaminated airports formerly used by American troops.
Ironically, Dow and Monsanto, another Agent Orange producer, are now conducting business in Vietnam.
But if the chairman of the Vietnam Association of Victims of Agent Orange could have his way, the two companies would pack up and leave, the paper reported. “My ultimate goal is to push the government to get both Dow and Monsanto out of Vietnam,” he said.
More at the linkLast year, India asked the International Olympics Committee (IOC) to discontinue Dow... more
-
-
A relatively obscure Congressional hearing on Tuesday became a flashpoint in a very important conflict: the attempt by the chemical industry — led by Dow Chemical – to gain a veto over the work of government scientists. This time, however, the scientists fought back, and they need our support.
The hearing was a joint project of the House Small Business Committee and House Science Committee. It focused on how a government report on cancer-causing chemicals is hurting “small business” in America. The Report on Carcinogens, which recently classified formaldehyde as a “known carcinogen” and styrene as a “reasonably anticipated” human carcinogen was under attack. It is a statutorily mandated report that is prepared by the highly respected National Toxicology Program (NTP).
The hearing is part of a disturbing pattern of political intimidation of government scientists for doing their jobs. Companies that make and use both chemicals launched an attack on the report even before it was published and its publication was delayed for years. It took political courage for Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius to allow the report to be released, and I was told phones rang off the hook at the White House from chemical industry lobbyists complaining about the decision.
The Report itself does not restrict the chemicals it names. The findings can be used by regulatory agencies like the Environmental Protection Agency to decide if any changes are needed to environmental rules, but they mostly inform the public and the marketplace. The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) requires that its safety data sheets be updated when the Report lists a chemical, a basic right-to-know measure for American workers.
So what was Dow complaining about at Tuesday’s hearing? Dow’s chief scientist Jim Bus effectively said that the NTP doesn’t do good science. Dow does good science. And the agency needs to give Dow and other companies a greater say in determinations like this for them to be credible with the public.
Never mind that the woman who runs the NTP and the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences — Dr. Linda Birnbaum — is perhaps the most credentialed person on the planet on these matters. Never mind the exhaustive peer-review and outside consultation that already takes place. No, we need Dow more involved, because the public certainly thinks chemical makers are more credible judges of the products they make than public health scientists whose only mandate is to identify substances that may be harming public health.
The arrogance and self-serving nature of Dow’s position was breath-taking, but the upside of the hearing was that it was also obvious and fell flat. Representative Brad Miller (D-NC) deserves special credit for blowing the whistle on the hearing, by pointing out that the styrene industry took credit for the fact that the hearing was taking place. Miller and Representatives Richmond (D-LA) and Tonko (D-NY) pointed out that industry opponents who would exonerate styrene and formaldehyde were hardly more credible than the NTP. Overall, the show trial intended by the hearing backfired on the inquisitors, Subcommittee Chairs Broun (R-GA) and Ellmers (R-NC).
But the issue requires continued vigilance. Already, the United States has lost the leadership of the world on health and safety issues in favor of the European Union, and that has an impact on our ability to compete in a world market that increasingly demands safer products. The modest attempts by EPA Administrator Jackson to restore that leadership have not only been undermined by House Republicans but in some cases by industry allies in the White House who have blocked key reforms. The attempt to politically intimidate Dr. Birnbaum would bring this trend to a new low, however, because it would signal that companies like Dow can block even the most basic scientific work from seeing the light of day when it offends them.
So please ask your member of Congress to support the independence of government scientists like Dr. Birnbaum at the NTP, but please also take a moment to tell Dow to back off and let government scientists do their job.
by Andy Igrejas
Source: http://www.occupymonsanto360.org (http://s.tt/1aK8L)A relatively obscure Congressional hearing on Tuesday became a flashpoint in a very... more
-
-
"When Great Ideas Rise"
Gluten sensitivity affects many people around the world. Learn how Dow has developed a plant-based cellulose that mimics gluten attributes and helps gluten-free bread, pasta and dough taste more like the real thing.
http://www.dow.com/images/corporate2012/homepage/subfeature-gluten-replacement.jpg
WTF???
Although my family is gluten intolerant, I draw the line at cellulose. Why is Dow even in the food business? They make the food and the package it comes in too, how convenient."When Great Ideas Rise"
Gluten sensitivity affects many people around the... more
-
-
MINNETONKA, Minn. and INDIANAPOLIS, Ind. - May 17, 2012
Syngenta and Dow AgroSciences LLC, a wholly owned subsidiary of The Dow Chemical Company (NYSE: Dow), announced today a joint agreement to offer two reduced refuge trait stacks to independent seed companies through Syngenta-owned GreenLeaf Genetics LLC. This agreement will make high-performing trait stacks, beginning with the Agrisure Viptera® 3220 and Agrisure 3122 trait stacks, more widely available to U.S. and Canadian corn growers. Inbreds for hybrid combinations will be offered for sale immediately for production this winter.
"With this opportunity, we further demonstrate our dedication to independent seed companies and commitment to providing them advances in trait technologies," said David Morgan, president of Syngenta Seeds, Inc. "Growers will enjoy greater productivity through reduced refuge and the convenience of purchasing this technology through their local independent seed supplier."
#########
Great, because I really trust my local seed supplier now.
http://iowagirlonthego.files.wordpress.com/2011/08/img_6737.jpgMINNETONKA, Minn. and INDIANAPOLIS, Ind. - May 17, 2012
Syngenta and Dow... more
-
-
WHAT IS IT GOING TO TAKE?
This video and beautiful powerful song made by Makana was done as a result of a vote in Hawaii that refused to give people the right to know about GMO. Powerful lobbyists in Washington DC representing the purveyors of monoculture and environmental contamination for their own profit used that money to corrupt those who put the interests of the few above the many. But this is not the end. We have voices. We have passion. And we have the truth on our side.
Occupying our food system now in any way we can do so be it on a street, in a garden or on a modem is essential and crucial now. There is no more time left for petty distractions. Monsanto, DOW Chemical, BASF, Bayer, Syngenta, et al have drawn the battle lines. Their goal is clear: control your seeds in order to control your life. And make no mistake, this is a war they are waging against nature itself. So please watch this video and contact those mentioned who came down once again on the side of those who care nothing about your planet, your food, or your health. Let them know they will no longer get away with putting their own interests ahead of the biodiversity of this planet. WE ARE THE MANY, THEY ARE THE FEW.
Thank you, Hawaii. MahaloWHAT IS IT GOING TO TAKE?
This video and beautiful powerful song made by Makana was... more
-
-
The Food and Drug Administration announced Friday that it was denying a petition to ban BPA from all food and drink containers, saying the science does not show an immediate cause for such action.
However, the federal agency cautioned that this ruling does not declare bisphenol A, or BPA, as safe. The agency says it is continuing its assessment of the chemical, which is used in the lining of most canned food and drinks.
Friday's action comes as a response to a petition filed in 2008 by the Natural Resources Defense Council claiming that the chemical poses a serious threat to human health.
"The FDA denied the NRDC petition today because it did not provide the scientific evidence needed to change current regulations, but this announcement is not a final safety determination and the FDA continues to support research examining the safety of BPA," said FDA spokesman Douglas Karas.
Karas said the FDA's recent research thus far indicates:
Exposure to BPA of human infants is from 84% to 92% less than previously estimated.
The level of BPA from food that could be passed from pregnant rodents to their unborn offspring is so low that it could not be measured. Researchers fed pregnant rodents 100 to 1,000 times more BPA than people are exposed to through food, and could not detect the active form of BPA in the fetus eight hours after the mother's exposure.
People of all ages process and rid their bodies of BPA faster than the rodents used as test animals do.
The FDA continues to study the effects of BPA and will make any necessary changes to BPA's status based on the science, Karas said.
Sarah Janssen, senior scientist for the Natural Resources Defense Council, criticized the federal agency for failing to ban BPA.
"BPA is a toxic chemical that has no place in our food supply," she said.
"The agency has failed to protect our health and safety - in the face of scientific studies that continue to raise disturbing questions about the long-term effects of BPA exposures, especially in fetuses, babies and young children."
Chemical industry lobbyists praised the government decision.
"FDA's decision today, which has taken into consideration the best available science, again confirms that BPA is safe for use in food-contact materials, as it has been approved and used safely for four decades," said Steve Hentges, senior scientist with the American Chemistry Council.
While the chemistry council is characterizing Friday's move as the government "closing the books" on the petition, it does not mean that the FDA has decided once and for all that BPA is safe.
BPA, a synthetic estrogen developed more than 70 years ago, came into wide use in the 1960s and 1970s to make polycarbonate plastic for such things as baby bottles. It is also used as an epoxy resin to line metal cans. BPA can be found in cellphones, dental sealants, eyeglasses, as a coating for cash register receipts and hundreds of other household items.
It has been detected in the urine of more than 93% of Americans tested.
'Serious questions'
Karas said FDA regulators had "serious questions" about studies that found harm to human health.
The FDA is working toward completion of another updated safety review on BPA this year to include all relevant studies and publications.
The agency's move Friday was criticized by Environmental Working Group, which has lobbied to remove BPA from food and food containers, particularly baby bottles and infant formula.
"The next decision the FDA should make is to remove 'responsible for protecting the public health' from its mission statement," said Jane Houlihan, senior vice president for research at the Environmental Working Group. "It's false advertising. Allowing a chemical as toxic as BPA, and linked to so many serious health problems, to remain in food means the agency has veered dangerously off course."
Scientists first became concerned about BPA in the 1990s when rats stored in polycarbonate cages began miscarrying and showing other signs of reproductive failure. Since then, thousands of studies have linked BPA to health problems.
BPA is regarded by scientists as particularly concerning for fetuses and infants. The effects have been found at low doses, hundreds of times smaller than governmental regulatory agencies have determined to be safe.
Industry revenue from BPA is estimated at more than $6 billion a year.
Chemical makers maintain the chemical is safe for all uses.
~~~~~~
Related Coverage
Warning: Chemicals in the packaging, surfaces or contents of many products may cause long-term health effects, including cancers of the breast, brain and testicles; lowered sperm counts, early puberty and other reproductive system defects; diabetes; attention deficit disorder, asthma and autism. A decade ago, the government promised to test these chemicals. It still hasn't.
More at the linkThe Food and Drug Administration announced Friday that it was denying a petition to... more
-
-
Dow Chemical is engaged in constant misinformation and misdirection on the issue of Bhopal – they are desperate to whitewash their image and refuse any responsibility for the ongoing suffering of the people of Bhopal. Here is an excerpt from a recent interview with Dow’s CEO – we will interrupt that broadcast to fill in the gaps that Andrew Liveris is trying to gloss over.
The interview text is from here: http://www.abc.net.au/pm/content/2012/s3464938.htm
MARK COLVIN: Now before you go I have to ask you; it’s an Olympic year, the Olympics are only a few months away. The Indians are threatening to boycott because Dow is a major sponsor. What are you saying to them?
ANDREW LIVERIS: Well I mean the issue that they’re all inflamed about is not the Dow issue, it’s an Indian government issue and that’s basically what we’re saying to them.
MARK COLVIN: Why? I mean you bought Union Carbide, which caused the Bhopal disaster.
ANDREW LIVERIS: The Indian government settled with Union Carbide in 1989. Settled and reaffirmed by their Supreme Court three times. So it’s got nothing to do with Dow and that’s in the legal agreements and all the bright lines. They’re trying to drag us in because we have deep pockets and that’s clearly what they want to do.
I would also note by the way the IOC supports us fully. There are lots of other corporate brands that support the Olympics that have had issues over time and boycotts don’t tend to work; they hurt a nation, they don’t hurt the Olympics.
ANDREW LIVERIS: But do you think that the settlement with Union Carbide was fair; there are an awful lot of people still suffering aren’t there?
ANDREW LIVERIS: Well you don’t have to ask me what I think; I think you have to go to the Indian Supreme Court and ask them what they think; they ratified it three times.
MYTHBUSTING #1 – UNION CARBIDE
Union Carbide (UCC) is now a wholly owned subsidiary of Dow Chemical. As UCC explains, their business activities “comprise components of Dow’s global operations rather than standalone operations” (UCC’s 2010 Securities and Exchange Commission filing).
‘Successor liability’ means that when one company merges into another, it gains BOTH its assets AND its liabilities. So, in gaining UCC’s wealth, Dow also gained UCC’s responsibility for the ongoing tragedy in Bhopal.
MYTHBUSTING #2 – THE SETTLEMENT
The settlement reached in 1989 – $470m –was 15% of the original claim for $3bn. $470m is roughly equal to £600 per survivor, none of whom were consulted. This money is not even enough to pay for the ongoing treatment that many survivors need.
The Indian government has recognised the settlement deal as an “irremediable injustice” and is now challenging its legitimacy in the Supreme Court.
The case for compensation is far from closed.
MARK COLVIN: So you bought it on a purely legalistic basis, knowing that you would have nothing more to pay?
ANDREW LIVERIS: There are companies being bought and sold all over the world all the time. Legacy issues and liabilities are a rule of law; rule of law speaks to bright lines and so that’s the topic here.
MYTHBUSTING #3 – LIABILITIES
The ‘polluter pays’ is a rule of law – it is a legal principle adopted by India and the US: if a company creates pollution, they must pay for it. Any damage the pollution causes is the company’s responsibility. Cases in both Indian and US courts are trying to make the polluter – UCC – pay to clean up and decontaminate the site of the disaster, and deal with the water contamination.
When UCC merged into Dow in 2001, Dow became responsible for UCC’s ‘polluter pays’ liabilities. Dow even recognised this by accepting UCC’s asbestos-related liabilities in the US which date back to before the Bhopal gas disaster. Dow set aside $2.2 billion to resolve these claims in the US, yet they refuse to accept liability in Bhopal.
The message from Dow and LOCOG is that ‘it is now the Indian government’s responsibility to clean up the site’ in Bhopal. But the government did not pollute the site, UCC polluted the site. Moreover, if the Indian government was to clean up the site, the money would come from Indian taxpayers, some of whom live in Bhopal.
Dow is asking the victims of the gas disaster and water contamination to pay up.
The polluter should pay, not the victims.
MARK COLVIN: Do you think the Indian team will boycott?
ANDREW LIVERIS: I don’t know what the Indian team will do. I think it’ll be a tragedy for India but that’s their decision.
MARK COLVIN: Is it damaging your company?
ANDREW LIVERIS: Absolutely not.
MARK COLVIN: How come?
ANDREW LIVERIS: Our company is a company that wins awards on sustainability. We’re named one of America’s most sustainably enriched company in terms of ethics….
(see Dow’s ‘sustainable’ and ‘ethical’ record here: www.athletesagainstdowchemical.wordpress.com)
MARK COLVIN: But in India I mean. There is clearly a depth of feeling about it.
ANDREW LIVERIS: It doesn’t hurt us in India. We have a great reputation in India. Look activist groups exist not just in India, they exist all around the world and people will have their views. It’s a free economy in India and they’ll have their views.
MYTHBUSTING #4 – DOW’S REPUTATION
There is widespread, international outrage at Dow’s involvement in the London Olympics.
Expressing that they are “dismayed” at Dow’s sponsorship of the Olympics, Indian officials refuse to endorse Dow Chemical and will boycott the opening and closing ceremonies in protest:
Meredith Alexander resigned from her position in the ethics committee for the London Olympics in protest.
Hindu groups from all over the UK met to rally their opposition to Dow’s involvement.....
More at the linkDow Chemical is engaged in constant misinformation and misdirection on the issue of... more
-
-
Positive action for positive change...
As part of the Global Day of Action to Shut Down Monsanto on Saturday, this action was co-organized by AGRA Watch/Community Alliance for Global Justice, Washington Fair Trade Coalition, Washington Biotechnology Action Council, and GMO-Free Washington. The protest was directed at the Gates Foundation for their efforts to spread Monsanto’s dangerous GMOs throughout Africa.Positive action for positive change...
As part of the Global Day of Action to Shut... more
-
-
Indian officials will not take part in 2012 London Olympics to protest DOW Chemical sponsorship. Athletes will take part in opening and closing ceremonies. For now.Indian officials will not take part in 2012 London Olympics to protest DOW Chemical... more
-
-
You may ask, who is Sachin? Sachin is a boy who lost this legs after drinking water contaminated by the Bhopal disaster that DOW Chemical now refuses to clean up as it continues to effect the people of Bhopal today. This is a crime against humanity, but we all have a voice to raise against DOW's sponsorship. Please watch the video and take action.You may ask, who is Sachin? Sachin is a boy who lost this legs after drinking water... more
-
-
American veterans and the entire country of Viet Nam affected by Agent Orange have been shafted beyond imagination due to corruption within the US government and US courts. US courts have protected Monsanto and Dow Chemical from liability and criminal prosecution. The US government has shielded Monsanto and Dow from the massive cost of medical treatment for victims and environmental remediation cleanup costs that would drive these corporations into bankruptcy.
Before we delve further into the issue, it’s important to detail what exactly dioxin is. Dioxin has a half life of 100 years or more when it is below the surface, leached into soil or embedded in river or stream sediment. Dioxin was generated as a byproduct of herbicide 2,4,5-T made by Monsanto and Dow, the top 2 producers of Agent Orange. It causes cancer, birth defects, liver damage and other major health problems.
Monsanto & Dow’s 2,4,5-T dioxin laden-herbicide was used in the US for agricultural purposes in the 1940′s before it was used for chemical warfare in Viet Nam from the early 1960′s through 1971. It was phased out in the late 1970′s. Now, let’s discuss the political situation behind this carcinogen.
US Government and US Court Dioxin Cover-Ups
•President Reagans’s administration, in cahoots with the CDC, thwarted a $43 million Congressional Study of Agent Orange in 1987 to protect itself and its corporate pals Monsanto & Dow from accountability to US veterans and the people of Viet Nam.
•US Courts dismissed veterans’ Agent Orange lawsuits based on a Supreme Court precedent, known as the Feres Doctrine, freeing the government of responsibility for deaths and injuries related to military service.
•The Supreme Court refused to hear American and Vietnamese victims’ lawsuits against Monsanto, Dow and other Agent Orange manufacturers on 3 separate occasions. Remember that the Supreme Court collects their checks from the federal government.
Atrocious Criminal Acts By Monsanto & Dow
•Agent Orange makers hide behind government contractor immunity, despite the fact that dioxin contaminated herbicide 2,4,5-T was produced long before they were contractors for the government (50 million tons of the herbicide was sprayed in the US per year). No modifications were used for Monsanto & Dow’s herbicide — half the ingredients in Agent Orange — so the immunity defense falls flat.
•Boehringer, a German 2,4,5-T herbicide producer notified Dow in 1957 about dioxin hazards and that dioxin could be eliminated by slow cooking the herbicide for about 12 hours. It appears that Dow and Monsanto continued cooking 2,4,5-T quickly in 45 minutes. Higher output led to higher profits. Monsanto’s formula contained high levels of dioxin and was dirtier than Dow’s product.
•Monsanto was not only aware in 1950 that dioxin was a health danger, but they also created a fraudulent health study.
•In 1965 Dow met in secret with other Agent Orange manufacturers to discuss the toxicity hazards of dioxin and their fear over a government investigation and restrictive regulations.
US Veterans Shafted By the Kangaroo Court
Judge Jack Weinstein of the US Federal Court of the Eastern District of New York committed the following offenses in several class action suits filed by veterans against Monsanto & Dow:
•Weinstein appointed attorneys to represent the veterans and then intimidated the attorneys into agreeing to a ‘nuisance’ settlement of $180 million- nowhere near enough money to cover the medical treatment of hundreds of thousands of injured vets.
•Weinstein rejected the veterans’ expert studies, instead of allowing a jury to decide on the credibility of the expert witnesses; Weinstein created a new rule of law from the bench.
•Weinstein based his ruling on Monsanto’s expert study that was later proven to be fraudulent.
• Weinstein dismissed all other veterans’ lawsuits against Monsanto and Dow.
• Weinstein took over a case that was unlawfully transferred to his federal court as it had been filed in the state of Texas. He dismissed that case.
• Astonishingly, Weistein created a second new rule of law to protect Monsanto and Dow. Weinstein invented immunity for government contractors!
Weinstein’s excuse for the government contractor defense was that if contractors were made to pay, they would pass the cost on to the government, so they were therefore immune. Weinstein’s new law was created from the bench instead of law passed through Congress!
Weinsteins’s law has now been extended to all government supply contractors (even non-military contractors) in the courts.
Viet Nam
Approximately 11 million gallons of Agent Orange was dumped on Viet Nam between 1962 to 1970. It is estimated that Agent Orange is responsible for 400,000 deaths, 3 million victims of disease and 500,000 children born with birth defects.
Over 14 million acres of Vietnamese forests were sprayed. Agent Orange was also dumped in water supplies.
In 2004, Vietnamese victims filed a lawsuit against Dow, Monsanto and other manufacturers of Agent Orange. Judge Weinstein (yes, the same Judge Weinstein) presided over this case and dismissed it. Weinstein used the excuse that Monsanto and Dow had government sovereign immunity that extended to them because they were government contractors. He also ruled that Agent Orange was not considered a poison during that period, under international law.
The Supreme Court refused to hear this case, too.
The stated purpose of using Agent Orange was to deny the enemy cover in forested areas through defoliation. However, the US Army did contract studies in 1943 of the effects of 2,4,5-T and 2,4-D (the other ingredient of Agent Orange) on cereal grains, including rice, and developed the concept of using aerial herbicide spraying to destroy enemy crops to disrupt the food supply. Obviously, poisoning the enemy, farmland and civilians was a chemical warfare strategy used by the US government.
Read more: http://naturalsociety.com/white-house-us-courts-and-epa-shaft-veterans-to-protect-monsanto/#ixzz1mZIi85a7
http://www.salem-news.com/stimg/february132012/agent_orange_the_last_battle.jpgAmerican veterans and the entire country of Viet Nam affected by Agent Orange have... more
-
-
If you assume that Bill Gates is so well informed about all his philanthropic targets that you take his word at face value, you would be in good company, but you might be terribly wrong. Organizations well versed in the agricultural issues facing developing nations are saying his annual letter, released last week, is completely mistaken when it asserts that a lack of support for GMO crop development is responsible, in part, for allowing world hunger to endure. We interviewed Heather Pilatic, Ph.D., co-director of the Pesticide Action Network North America (PANNA), to show us the other, important side of the story.
TakePart: In the introduction to his letter, Bill Gates cites the Green Revolution of the 1960s and '70s, saying scientists created new seed varieties for rice, wheat, and maize, and that this resulted in increased crop yield and a decrease in extreme poverty around the world. Do you agree that this is a model to use moving forward?
Heather Pilatic: The Green Revolution is a story that some people like to tell, but it has little basis in historical fact. Take the Green Revolution’s origins in 1940s Mexico, for instance. It was not really about feeding the world; Mexico was a food exporter at the time. Rather, the aims included stabilizing restive rural populations in our neighbor to the south, and making friends with a government that at the time was selling supplies to the World War II Axis powers and confiscating oil fields held by Standard Oil (a funding source for the Rockefeller Foundation, one of the key architects of the Green Revolution).
We can also learn from India, the Green Revolution’s next stop after Mexico. India embraced the Green Revolution model of chemical-intensive agriculture. Now it is the world’s second biggest rice grower with surplus grain in government warehouses. Yet India has more starving people than sub-Saharan Africa—at more than 200 million, that’s nearly a quarter of its population. History shows that a narrow focus on increasing crop yield through chemical-seed packages reduces neither hunger nor poverty.
So no, we do not agree that the Green Revolution offers a promising model for addressing poverty.
TakePart: Bill Gates is urging that more money be donated to agricultural innovation, including crop GMOs, because "one in seven people will continue living needlessly on the edge of starvation." Of course, this argument worries all of us. Will you explain PANNA's perspective?
Heather Pilatic: We could not agree with Gates more on the first point. Investment in agriculture in the developing world is enormously efficient and more impactful on the ground than investment in just about any other sector. It is also true that more people than ever before are going hungry, needlessly. We have enough food to go around now. We disagree with Gates on two points—one scientific and one political.
First, the science. Most of the rest of the world's experts agree that GMOs are not what the world's poor need to feed themselves. The science simply doesn't bear this claim out. Our staff scientist was a lead author in the most comprehensive analysis of global agriculture ever undertaken, the UN & World Bank's International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development (the IAASTD). After four years and with the input of over 400 experts, and reams of evidence, the IAASTD concluded that the developing world's best bet for feeding itself in the 21st century was explicitly not the kind of chemically intensive farming that accompanies GMO seeds. Rather, these experts found that smaller scale, farmer-driven, knowledge-intensive, ecological agriculture is one of the most promising ways forward for the developing world in particular. The U.N. Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food has reported that ecological farming can double food production within 10 years. This is the kind of agriculture we should be investing in.
Second, the political—and this cuts two ways. We must finally recognize that hunger is a problem of poverty and access to resources, especially land, not agricultural yield. The solution to world hunger is a political one: stop kicking farmers off their land and dumping product on the world market that puts them out of business; protect farmers’ rights to save and exchange seed; kick the bankers out of food-crop commodities speculation, they're playing roulette with our food system; write fair trade policies; listen to the world's poor, they know what they need...in short, democratize food and farming if you want to address hunger.
Finally, here in the U.S., kick the farm lobby out of Congress and the pesticide industry out of our federal regulatory agencies (EPA & USDA). Together, these two special interests have a chokehold on U.S. farm, aid and trade policy, and dominate our agricultural research agenda in ways that make it possible for a smart man like Bill Gates to believe and prosyletize on behalf of an approach to agriculture that A, the rest of the world knows is defunct; and B, has failed—after 14 years of commercialization and billions of dollars in public research funding—to deliver on a single one of its promises to the public.
More at the linkIf you assume that Bill Gates is so well informed about all his philanthropic targets... more
-
-
Last week, the London Olympics were wrapped in fresh embarassment and controversy as Mayor Boris Johnson’s ‘ethics Tzar’ resigned live on BBC Newsnight over fears that her ethics and sustainability concerns with regards to sponsors simply weren’t being listened to. In an interview with Jeremy Paxman she announced that her position at the Commission for a Sustainable London 2012 (CSL) was no longer tenable in light of the LOCOG’s continued relationship with and defence of the Dow Chemical Company.
The moment: Meredith Alexander appears live on the BBC's Newsnight with Jeremy Paxman to announce her resignation from the Commission for a Sustainable London 2012
“By coming on air tonight, I’m taking the decision to resign my position and stand up for my principles… I feel that I was part of a body that has been used to legitimize Dow’s involvement in the games.” Dow took over Union Carbide Corporation in 2001, but neither company have addressed the ongoing issue of water and soil contamination in Bhopal that continues to kill thousands and afflict even more with chronic illnesses.
Coverage of the ongoing Bhopal tragedy, and the controversy over Dow and London 2012, went through the roof and Meredith acquired overnight celebrity status in India. Her resignation live on British television resulted in an outpouring of hope, gratitude and optimism from those still living in Union Carbide and Dow’s toxic shadow.
This week, the Bhopal Medical Appeal caught up with Ms. Alexander for a chat…
BMA: What were the main reasons for your resignation from the Commission for a Sustainable London 2012 (CSL) ?
MA: All the evidence I have read has convinced me that Dow Chemicals is responsible for the deaths of more than 20,000 people in the aftermath of the Bhopal gas leak. The assets and liabilities of the company involved at the time – Union Carbide – are in Dow’s hands. Londoners, and other people, who are rightly excited about the London games, should not have this toxic legacy on their conscience.
BMA: At what point did your position became “untenable” and why?
MA: The tipping point for me, was the correspondence between Amnesty International and Lord Coe [Chair of LOCOG]. The latest response from Amnesty, just last week, pointed out how LOCOG have become apologists for Dow, falsely legitimising Dow’s stance that it bears no responsibility to the victims of the disaster and their families. I feel that the Olympic bodies are supporting Dow’s line and have failed to take the victim’s views into consideration.
BMA: Last week, Sebastian Shakespeare published a controversial column in the London Evening Standard with the bold headline “The Olympics should be no place for ethics.” Have you read it, and if so, what did you think?
MA: I have read it. And I actually submitted a letter to the editor yesterday about it. I think most Londoners share my view that ethics and sport can and must go hand in hand. Yet as things stand, the enjoyment of the Games risks being hampered by the toxic legacy of one of the sponsors: Dow Chemicals. When London bid to host the 2012 Games, we made a promise to the world that it would be most sustainable Games ever. [Read Meredith's whole letter to the ES newspaper here.]
BMA: Based on your resignation, can you further tell us why you think that ethics, morality, and sustainability are an important part of the Olympics? Why shouldn’t we just accept that commercial sponsorship is inevitable and ‘get over it.’
MA: I think it’s important to remember that there was absolutely no need for the London 2012 organisers to award anyone the contract for this wrap. It’s a completely optional item that is not essential to the design of the stadium. It will not help a single athlete run faster nor will it help spectators have a better view. Dow’s connection to the Olympics is a slap in the face to the victims of Bhopal, but the fact that this wrap is unnecessary makes this particular deal even more galling for those who have spent decades fighting for justice.
More of the interview at the linkLast week, the London Olympics were wrapped in fresh embarassment and controversy as... more
-
-
Dow and its affiliate companies, knowingly and willfully, sold products of Union Carbide Corporation (UCC) in India routing it through untainted companies by re-labeling them to subvert the asset attachment orders of Indian courts. TOI has accessed internal documents - emails, correspondence and memos etc - of Dow showing how the chemical giant decided to label UCC products and sell them in its name to evade taint and prosecution.
The documents show Dow continued to set the prices for UCC products in India, though it now claims UCC is a separate entity and it has no responsibility for the firm's liabilities for the 1984 Bhopal gas tragedy. Dow sold goods worth $24 million of UCC products in 1999 through one company alone. The correspondence indicates that there was a concerted and conscious attempt to create a firewall between Dow and UCC in public domain, and rebrand UCC as Dow's.
These documents were submitted as evidence by one such front company in litigation against Dow in a US Court, which remained buried in the records so far.
Dow has never claimed ownership over UCC's liabilities in India, and insisted that the latter is a separate legal entity. The Bhopal activists have demanded that the corporate veil between the two be breached by courts and the government to prosecute the chemical giant, which has also got embroiled in the controversy over sponsoring the London Olympics, 2012.
A mail from Dow Chemical Pacific Manager in April 2001 reads, "There was a big lawsuit with UCC in India in the past. UCC considered the case is closed but India's official and companies didn't think so. Presuming the product ships directly from USA to India, my suggestion is to selling the product under Dow legal entity with Dow label and document will be a good way to proceed."
Another email from Graham Fox, Dow Chemical regional GM for Middle East &Indian subcontinent, to Ravi Muthukrishnan, country manager, Dow Chemical International Pvt. Ltd. (Mumbai) in January, 2001, states, "As you will be aware, UCC have not sold directly to India since Bhopal and have used Mega Visa to handle many of their sales of specialty chemicals, some bulk chemicals and wire & cable products. They work across our Dow businesses and have some several million $ sales revenue as I understand it."
A third letter indicates that this was part of a well-thought out strategy to create a firewall between Dow and UCC after their merger. A Catherine Maxey, Public Affairs director at Dow, wrote in March, 2001, "Union Carbide Corporation is a wholly owned subsidiary of The Dow Chemical Company. UCC will not be issuing any more press releases, product announcements, price increases, etc. All business activities are done under the umbrella of a Dow business. We face the market as Dow. Reporters will be tempted to keep talking about Union Carbide. But we should discourage reporters from using the words Union Carbide, unless it's reference to a historical activity. There should be no need for a trade press reporter to refer to Union Carbide, as we face the market as Dow They should not call a product a "Union Carbide product." All products are sold as Dow products now. Any current or future activity of a business is done as Dow."
Another email reveals that Dow officials were making crucial decisions like price of UCC products.
An email from Arpana Mody, Dow India manager in June, 2001, reads, "We agreed on the following procedural steps for handling Mega Visa orders through Singapore: Mega Visa-Mumbai, after obtaining enquiry will refer to respective Business Managers in Dow-India for pricing. This will be for products where pricing is not standard and subject to change. After getting order from Mega Visa-Mumbai, Mega Visa-Singapore will place order on UCC-Singapore, under copy to respective Business Managers and Mr Ashish Mitra at Dow India for price approval."
Yet another email from a Dow manager says, "Since Megavisa Singapore is a dummy company who negotiates nothing and owns nothing, Dow India now would like to do the business with MegaVisa India direct." But the idea was shot down by higher ups in the legal department of the company, stating, "Country management and I are against this idea at the present time due to the threat of litigation and the protest incident of a couple of months ago."
The series of correspondence reveals the linkage between various Dow companies internationally, the use of `corporate veil' and their continued trading of UCC products in India after the courts here named it as a proclaimed offender and ordered its movable and immovable properties attached.
The Indian government in its curative petition has not asked the Supreme Court to breach the corporate veil between Dow and UCC.Dow and its affiliate companies, knowingly and willfully, sold products of Union... more
-
-
The London 2012 Olympic Games were embroiled in further controversy last night as Meredith Alexander, a Sustainability Commissioner and Ethics Adviser for the games, resigned live on the BBC’s flagship news program Newsnight. In an interview with Jeremy Paxman she announced that her position at the Commission for a Sustainable London 2012 (CSL) was no longer tenable in light of the LOCOG’s continued relationship with and defence of the Dow Chemical Company.
She stated, into TV cameras; “By coming on air tonight, I’m taking the decision to resign my position and stand up for my principles… I feel that I was part of a body that has been used to legitimize Dow’s involvement in the games.” She went on to state that while Dow Chemicals have an ‘army of PR people’ she hoped that her resignation could bring some attention to the continuing plight of victims in Bhopal.
The Dow Chemical Company took over Union Carbide corporation in 2001, but neither company have addressed the ongoing issue of water and soil contamination in Bhopal that continues to kill thousands and inflict even more with chronic illnesses. Lord Coe and LOCOG have been criticised for allowing Dow Chemical’s the opportunity to sponsor the London 2012 stadium.
Dow Chemical is currently a named respondent in two court cases pertaining to the Bhopal disaster and Dow’s wholly-owned subsidiary, Union Carbide, is involved in a US court case relating to the ongoing contamination. Union Carbide is also still wanted on criminal charges in India and the Indian courts have stated that Dow is ‘harbouring fugitives from justice’.
Further into the Newsnight interview, Ms. Alexander hinted at a developing crisis within the CSL regarding the Dow issue and stated that some of her fellow commissioners were also “very concerned” but she would not comment on the prospect of further resignations.
More at the linkThe London 2012 Olympic Games were embroiled in further controversy last night as... more
-
-
In his State of the Union speech, President Obama lauded natural gas from shale as a key part of his clean energy plan. Fracking shale for natural gas is an intensive extractive process that has polluted the water and air of communities across the country. There is nothing clean about it.
President Obama said that he "will not walk away on the promise of clean energy." Tell him that the gas industry's promises are deceptive.
Fill out the form below to send a message today!
More at the linkIn his State of the Union speech, President Obama lauded natural gas from shale as a... more
-
-
You’ve all heard the news: farmers across the country are losing their fields to superweeds so formidable and fast-spreading that they break farm machinery and render millions of acres of farmland useless. These superweeds have evolved as a direct consequence of Monsanto’s RoundUp Ready pesticide-seed package. Now superbugs are emerging, resistant to Monsanto’s transgenic insecticidal crops. Ecologists predicted this ecological disaster 15 years ago.
The big question is, can we possibly learn from this ecological and agronomic disaster? The U.S. Department of Agriculture and Monsanto’s rival, Dow Chemical, apparently cannot.
From bad to worse
Instead of abandoning this losing strategy, Dow is trying to get us running faster on the same old broken pesticide treadmill. Dow and USDA are hoping to quietly approve a new genetically engineered corn seed that basically swaps RoundUp (glyphosate) out and an even worse weedkiller (2,4-D) in. Bad idea.
As with Monsanto’s RoundUp Ready lines, the herbicide with which these seeds are engineered to be used (2,4-D) will surge in use. Dow aims to get 2,4-D-resistant corn to market this year, soy next year and cotton in 2015. These three crops dominate U.S. agriculture, blanketing over 100 million acres of mono-cropped countryside and driving the pesticide market. Only this time, the fallout will be even worse. Here’s why:
2,4-D is a more toxic herbicide, both to humans and to plants. 2,4-D is a reproductive toxicant (associated with lower sperm counts) and its formulations have been linked to cancer (in particular non-Hodgkins lymphoma), disruption of the immune and endocrine (hormone) systems and birth defects. EPA has also expressed a “concern for developmental neurotoxicity resulting from exposure to 2,4-D.”
2,4-D does and will drift off of target crops – both through spray drift and volatilization. The latter enables chemicals to travel with moving air masses for miles. Neither applicator nor innocent bystander can prevent such movement. The spread of 2,4-D across our lands will damage non-target crops and vegetation, devastate adjacent ecosystems and poses a very real threat to rural economies and farmers growing non-2,4-D-resistant crops. Conventional farmers growing their product miles away will suffer severe crop losses, while organic farmers will lose both crops and certification, resulting in business failures, job losses and an economic unraveling of already-stressed rural communities.
2,4-D-resistant “superweeds” will arise and spread just as RoundUp-resistant “superweeds” have taken over farms and countryside in the Midwest and Southeast. Where will this leave struggling farmers? What even more deadly pesticide will the biotech companies resort to next?
Corn is wind-pollinated which means that genetic material from 2,4-D corn will contaminate non-GE corn. You cannot put a GE genie back in the bottle.
What next?
Will Dow provide compensation to farmers, their children and rural communities for the harms likely to occur should the company secure approval of its 2, 4-D resistant corn? I rather doubt it. Dow has still refused to assume responsibility for the deaths and devastation arising from the pesticide explosion in Bhopal, India in 1984, so why would the company show any integrity now?
It will take an active, engaged public to get USDA back on track and in the business of serving the public interest.
What about USDA? Can we expect our public agency to carefully scrutinize the likely fallout of approving 2,4-D resistant corn? One problem is that USDA does not really want to know what the public thinks.
More at the linkYou’ve all heard the news: farmers across the country are losing their fields to... more
-
-
Video showing Bhopal victims upping the ante to demand Lord Coe drink a sip of Bhopal water in light of the total apathy to the plight of Bhopal which DOW claims no responsibility for. This epitomizes the excesses of the 1% that think they can poison, kill and maim innocent people, other species and the Earth for generations while still making profit.Video showing Bhopal victims upping the ante to demand Lord Coe drink a sip of Bhopal... more
-
-
WILL LORD COE, AND MAYOR BORIS JOHNSON,
TAKE THE BHOPAL WATER TASTE CHALLENGE?
FOR IMMEDIATE USE
- Monday the 9th January, Trafalgar Square, 2.15pm
Despite the continuing furore concerning Dow Chemical’s sponsorship of the London Olympics, LOCOG’s position is that they remain satisfied with Dow Chemical’s ethical performance and sustainability.
The people of Bhopal beg to differ and, on Monday the 9th January, just 200 days before the London Olympics begin, a survivor of the Bhopal Disaster will be challenging both Lord Coe, and Mayor Boris Johnson, to taste some Bhopal drinking water. This water is contaminated with highly toxic chemicals that Dow’s subsidiary, Union Carbide, recklessly dumped while their Bhopal factory was in production.
Thousands of people in Bhopal have no other source of drinking water than this highly contaminated source. But, the Dow Chemical Company not only chooses not to accept responsibility for Union Carbide’s mess it even refuses, despite a huge body of scientific evidence, to accept that the groundwater is even contaminated!
Farah Williams, a survivor of the Bhopal Disaster, will be inviting Lord Coe and Mayor Johnson to taste some of Dow’s finest produce. She will have a specially designed bottle of B’eauPal drinking water (a spoof mineral water product) and can be filmed or photographed in front of the Olympic Countdown clock. The clock will be adorned with a specially designed banner explaining that there are only ’200 Days Left to Dump Dow’!
Barry Gardiner MP, ’Friends Of India’ will be on hand for interviews, along with Lorraine Close the host of a change.org petition demanding Dow be dropped from the Olympics which has already attracted nearly 17,000 signatures.
More at the linkWILL LORD COE, AND MAYOR BORIS JOHNSON,
TAKE THE BHOPAL WATER TASTE CHALLENGE?
FOR... more
-
-
Proven in the Jungles of Vietnam as Part of Agent Orange!
Dow Chemical is seeking USDA approval for a genetically engineered (GE) version of corn that is resistant to 2,4-D, a herbicide that was used in the formulation of the highly toxic defoliant Agent Orange. Agent Orange (half 2,4-D by composition) was extensively used in Vietnam by the military to destroy forests and crops.
Dow’s Christmas gift for America was formally announced, by the USDA, in the December 27, 2011 edition of the Federal Register. If the federal government wants to bury something in the news, and burn up part of our window to publicly respond, you can bet they’ll do it around the holidays. The public has 60 days to comment on Dow’s petition for deregulation, and can do so online at:
http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=APHIS-2010-0103-0001
Weeds are increasingly adapting to Monsanto’s genetically engineered line of crops that rely on the use of a different herbicide, glyphosate, which Monsanto markets as Round-up®. This is leading competitors, like Dow, and proponents of GE agriculture to look for weed killing alternatives. Herbicides more toxic than Round-up® appear to be next up in the pipeline.
2,4-D, a systemic herbicide, is used on many types of broadleaf weeds. It is a chlorinated phenoxy compound that has caused serious eye and skin irritation among agricultural workers. According to information compiled by Cornell University, rats fed 2,4-D produced “fetuses with abdominal cavity bleeding and increased mortality.” And 2,4-D may cause infertility, birth defects, organ toxicity and neurological effects.
As Dow’s GE corn is resistant to the herbicide, it is possible that the plant may absorb 2,4-D residues into its structure, and then transfer those chemicals, or their related metabolites, to livestock and humans consuming corn or milk, meat and eggs produced from the GE crop.
The USDA also just announced the proposed approval for a new strain of drought resistant corn, and a soybean, Soymega™, both from Monsanto. The Obama White House appears to be giving Monsanto and Dow, and other biotechnology corporations, everything they want while the public, according to polls, is overwhelmingly concerned about genetic engineering and losing control of our diets.
Thanks for speaking out in defense of a sane food production system. We hope you will be proactive by doing the following to protect your family:
1.Exclusively purchase organic products in the supermarket. They are the only food items that are legally prohibited from using GMOs with oversight sanctioned by Congress and independent watchdogs like The Cornucopia Institute.
2.We hope you also consider signing the following petition, asking President Barack Obama and USDA Secretary Tom Vilsack to consider the widespread public opposition to further release of novel genetic organisms in our environment. Given the immaturity of the industry, the long-term impacts to health and the environment are simply unknown. The petition also calls for mandatory labeling of GMOs giving consumers the right to choose.
Click here to read and sign this petition.
More at the link
http://earthfirst.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/dow-chemical.jpgProven in the Jungles of Vietnam as Part of Agent Orange!
Dow Chemical is seeking... more
-
