tagged w/ Round Up
-
The verdict as well as closing remarks will be given December 6, 3:30 PM Bangalore India time. That should be around 5AM standard EST here for anyone interested in seeing justice done. I wll report on any other information I get about this.
I hope this is only a first step to bringing accountability to these purveyors of global toxicity and death.The verdict as well as closing remarks will be given December 6, 3:30 PM Bangalore... more
-
-
70% percent or more of our food contains genetically engineered food brought by the bio-tech giant: Monsanto.
GMO is endangering people’s health and our environment at an alarming rate.
Cross-contamination is irreversible and good, organic crops are being jeopardized.
These seeds are incredibly expensive compared to the traditional ones and have been genetically modified to produce their own pesticide, to survive the spraying of the: “Roundup”, a potent herbicide and to self terminate.
This has lead our farmers to buy new GMO seeds each year and depend on Monsanto. As a result of this ruthless drive to use India as a testing ground for genetically modified crops, 125,000 farmers took their own lives.
These people were driven to debt, to economic distress, homeless and landless.
GMO has and is failing catastrophically.
This company is persecuting, bullying and bringing farms to bankruptcy.
GMO was never adequately tested for safety, actually more and more research shows its dangers to the human/animal health, polluting our crops and our water.
Monsanto did use false advertising; Monsanto poisons the third world and privatizes water. Its employees have passed through the so-called revolving door many times, they rotated between this industry and the public agencies: Clarence Thomas, Gwendolyn S. King, Linda Fisher, Jim Travis, Linda Avery Strachanand, Toby Moffet , Marcia Hale, Donald Bandle, George H. Poste, Michael Kantor and Michael Taylor all bending rules, finding loopholes to assure this company profits.
This technology is only exacerbating hunger, poverty, irreversible contamination and climate change in our world.
Bring down Monsanto’s monopoly on our food and a centralized agriculture.
Bring down Monsanto’s genetically engineered seeds.
Bring down the use of harmful pesticides, herbicides and chemicals alike.
Hold this company accountable for its damages to the world.
Organic agriculture, permaculture and biodiversity are the only answer to sustainability, to the preservation of our environment and our health.
We want you, as our government, as a body of representation of the people of the United States to invest billions subsidizing organic, environmental agriculture.
Bring down Monsanto’s poisoning, companies alike and the agrochemical industry once and for all as it is one of the greatest threats to the whole human race.
Thank you.
Please sign and share this petition on Facebook, Myspace and Twitter.
Repost this message:
Tell our Government: Bring Down Monsanto’s poisoning. Hold this company accountable for its damages to the world! http://bit.ly/bko2mZ
http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/bring-down-monsanto-monopoly/
More at the link70% percent or more of our food contains genetically engineered food brought by the... more
-
-
There is genetically modified produce in a lot of the processed food you eat, but this is the first time that Monsanto is taking fresh GM produce from the ground straight to your mouth. If it works out, there will be plenty more.
Monsanto, the world's largest seed company, is known for developing engineered crops (i.e. corn and soybeans) that end up in many of the food products found on grocery store aisles, as well as in fibers and animal feed. Up until now, the company's GM crops have only been available in processed foods--in other words, in little bits and pieces. But now Monsanto is making a move into the consumer market with GM sweet corn, which will be found in a supermarket produce bin or farmer's market near you starting this fall.
There is a good chance you've already eaten GM sweet corn: Syngenta--a Monsanto rival--has been selling it for a decade. And Monsanto already sells GM squash developed by Seminis, which the company bought in 2005. So why is Monsanto's sweet corn a big deal? This is the first consumer product actually developed by Monsanto. While previous industry attempts to introduce GM consumer-oriented vegetables in the 1990s failed miserably (see Calgene's Flavr Savr tomatoes), Monsanto may be warming up to the idea. "I think Monsanto is trying to test the waters here," says Bill Freese, a science policy analyst with the Center for Food Safety. If GM sweet corn works out for the agri-giant, we might see even more GM produce on our supermarket shelves.
Monsanto, which already controls 60% of the U.S. corn market, is including traits in the new sweet corn that make it resistant to both Monsanto's Roundup herbicide and to insects (through the inclusion of Bt toxin, a trait that disrupts insect digestive systems and eventually kills them). As we have mentioned before, at least 21 weed species have become resistant to Roundup. And Bt toxin may have negative health effects--a recent study found the toxin in the maternal and fetal blood of pregnant women, though the implications of that aren't known quite yet.
"There's a concern with these GE crops that we eat with minimal processing [like sweet corn]...we're exposed to a lot more of whatever is in it versus a processed corn product," says Freese. This may be one of the rare cases where processed food is better for you than fresh food.
The market for sweet corn is smaller than the market for grain corn, and up until now GM sweet corn sales have been dominated by Syngenta, which also uses Bt toxin in its product. Now that Monsanto is entering the game, there will be even more room for cross-pollination with non-GM corn crops. "Corn is very promiscuous, meaning it's easy for cross-pollination to occur," says Marcia Ishii-Eiteman, senior scientist at the Pesticide Action Network North America. "Farmers won't be able to access conventional seeds, and they may lose local varieties."
Think that consumers would never buy a Monsanto-branded ear of sweet corn given the company's controversial reputation? Maybe not--but it doesn't matter. A Monsanto representative told the LA Times: "It's up to us to make sure we help tell people about the benefits...given how sweet corn is normally sold--by the ear, in larger bins in produce sections of the market--it's not really something that can be easily branded."
More at the link.There is genetically modified produce in a lot of the processed food you eat, but this... more
-
-
The EOS report showed industry has known that glyphosate causes birth defects since the 1980s and EU regulators have known since the 1990s. But instead of informing the public, industry and regulators have repeatedly claimed that glyphosate and Roundup do not cause birth defects.
Earth Open Source's response to Monsanto is also below (item 1).
---
---
1. Earth Open Source response to Monsanto
June 14, 2011
http://on.fb.me/machCY
Monsanto responded to our report, "Roundup and birth defects: Is the public being kept in the dark?" in a statement on its website.
Monsanto said, "Regulatory authorities and independent experts around the world agree that glyphosate does not cause adverse reproductive effects in adult animals or birth defects in offspring of these adults exposed to glyphosate, even at doses far higher than relevant environmental or occupational exposures."
However, one of the main points of our report is that regulatory authorities have indeed agreed that glyphosate does not cause birth defects – but that conclusion is directly contradicted by the evidence in industry's own studies. These industry studies, submitted by companies including Monsanto in support of glyphosate's approval in the EU, showed that glyphosate causes birth defects in experimental animals. These effects were found not only at high doses, but also at mid and lower doses.
In addition, studies from the independent scientific literature, also detailed in our report and hitherto ignored or dismissed by the EU Commission and the EFSA, show that glyphosate and Roundup cause birth defects in experimental animals, as well as cancer, genetic damage, endocrine disruption and other serious health effects. Many of these effects are found at very low, physiologically relevant doses.
Monsanto said that Earth Open Source created "an account of glyphosate toxicity from a selected set of scientific studies, while they ignored much of the comprehensive data establishing the safety of the product". This is false, since our data analysis included industry-funded research studies, some commissioned by Monsanto, which were submitted to the European Commission in support of glyphosate's approval. We found that both these studies and studies by independent scientists contained clear evidence indicating that glyphosate and Roundup cause birth defects.
Monsanto said, "glyphosate inhibits an enzyme that is essential to plant growth; this enzyme is not found in humans or other animals, contributing to the low risk to human health from the use of glyphosate according to label directions."
However, numerous studies by industry and independent scientists detailed in our report show that glyphosate and Roundup are toxic to mammals and to human cells tested in vitro. Thus, Roundup must have other modes of action in addition to the enzyme inhibitory effect described by Monsanto. This is not surprising, as it can take decades to establish the precise mode of action of a toxin. Often, it remains unclear.
Monsanto called the studies that show problems with glyphosate "flawed". But we repeat – among the studies that we review in our report are industry studies, including some commissioned by Monsanto, which show that glyphosate causes birth defects in experimental animals. It follows that Monsanto is condemning the industry studies – including its own studies – as flawed. Since the current EU approval of glyphosate is based on these industry studies, Monsanto's apparent judgment that they are flawed gives us all the more reason to question the current approval of glyphosate.
Monsanto's less than convincing attempt to rebut the conclusions presented in our paper raises additional questions regarding the logic supporting the approval of glyphosate as safe for use in the EU. It provides additional justification for our appeal that the European Commission appoint independent scientists to carry out an immediate, objective review of glyphosate and Roundup, considering the full range of industry and independent studies.The EOS report showed industry has known that glyphosate causes birth defects since... more
-
-
---
---
Public kept in the dark on Roundup link with birth defects
*Industry knew since 1980s, regulators since 1990s*
Earth Open Source
Press release for immediate release, 7 June 2011
Contact: claire.robinson@earthopensource.org
Industry and EU regulators knew as long ago as the 1980s-1990s that Roundup, the world's best selling herbicide, causes birth defects – but they failed to inform the public. This is the conclusion of a new report, "Roundup and birth defects: Is the public being kept in the dark?" co-authored by a group of international scientists and researchers and released today.[1]
The report reveals that industry's own studies (including one commissioned by Monsanto) showed as long ago as the 1980s that Roundup's active ingredient glyphosate causes birth defects in laboratory animals.
The German government has known about these findings since at least the 1990s, when as the "rapporteur" member state for glyphosate, it reviewed industry's studies for the EU approval of the herbicide. The European Commission has known since at least 2002, when it signed off on glyphosate's approval.
But this information was not made public. On the contrary, regulators have consistently misled the public about glyphosate's safety. As recently as last year, the German Federal Office for Consumer Protection and Food Safety, BVL, told the Commission there was "no evidence of teratogenicity" (ability to cause birth defects) for glyphosate.
BVL made this comment in its rebuttal[2] of an independent scientific study published last year by Argentine scientists. The study showed that Roundup and glyphosate cause birth defects in frogs and chickens at concentrations much lower than those used in agricultural spraying.[3] The study was prompted by reports of high rates of birth defects and cancers in areas of South America growing genetically modified (GM) Roundup Ready soy, which is engineered to tolerate being sprayed liberally with glyphosate herbicide.
In its rebuttal of the Argentine study, BVL cited as proof of glyphosate's safety the industry studies submitted for the Commission's 2002 approval of glyphosate (the approval that is currently in force).
But the authors of the new report obtained the approval documents and found that contrary to BVL's claim, industry's own studies, conducted in the 1980s and 1990s, showed that glyphosate/Roundup causes birth defects in experimental animals. In some cases, these effects occurred at low doses.
The German authorities and the EU Commission's ECCO expert review panel[4] whitewashed the findings and the Commission approved the herbicide.
Claire Robinson, a co-author of the new report and spokesperson for the sustainability NGO Earth Open Source, which published it, said, "This looks like a thirty-year cover-up by industry and regulators and it has certainly placed the public at risk. Roundup is used not only by farmers but by home gardeners and in school grounds and other public areas, in part because of false marketing claims that it is safe."
Commission delays review of glyphosate
A new, more stringent pesticide regulation comes into force in the EU this June. An objective review of glyphosate under this new regulation would almost certainly result in a ban. This is because under the regulation, independent studies have to be taken into consideration. Many of these studies, summarised in the new report, show that glyphosate and Roundup cause birth defects, cancer, genetic damage, endocrine disruption, and other serious effects, often at very low doses.
Glyphosate was due to be reviewed in 2012. But late last year, the Commission quietly passed a directive delaying the review of glyphosate and 38 other pesticides until 2015.[5]
____________
cont.---
---
Public kept in the dark on Roundup link with birth defects
*Industry knew... more
-
-
WASHINGTON -- Industry regulators have known for years that Roundup, the world's best-selling herbicide produced by U.S. company Monsanto, causes birth defects, according to a new report released Tuesday.
The report, "Roundup and birth defects: Is the public being kept in the dark?" found regulators knew as long ago as 1980 that glyphosate, the chemical on which Roundup is based, can cause birth defects in laboratory animals.
But despite such warnings, and although the European Commission has known that glyphosate causes malformations since at least 2002, the information was not made public.
Instead regulators misled the public about glyphosate's safety, according to the report, and as recently as last year, the German Federal Office for Consumer Protection and Food Safety, the German government body dealing with the glyphosate review, told the European Commission that there was no evidence glyphosate causes birth defects.
The report comes months after researchers found that genetically-modified crops used in conjunction Roundup contain a pathogen that may cause animal miscarriages. After observing the newly discovered organism back in February, Don Huber, a emeritus professor at Purdue University, wrote an open letter to Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack requesting a moratorium on deregulating crops genetically altered to be immune to Roundup, which are commonly called Roundup Ready crops.
In the letter, Huber also commented on the herbicide itself, saying: "It is well-documented that glyphosate promotes soil pathogens and is already implicated with the increase of more than 40 plant diseases; it dismantles plant defenses by chelating vital nutrients; and it reduces the bioavailability of nutrients in feed, which in turn can cause animal disorders."
Although glyphosate was originally due to be reviewed in 2012, the Commission decided late last year not to bring the review forward, instead delaying it until 2015. The chemical will not be reviewed under more stringent, up-to-date standards until 2030.
CONTINUEDWASHINGTON -- Industry regulators have known for years that Roundup, the world's... more
-
-
At this site you will find action items and ways you can get involved with getting GMO labelling on the ballot in California in 2012. This will hopefully be the beginning of a nationwide effort to do what Europe did years ago due to citizen action. Labelling GMOs in our food will give us a choice in what we purchase and what we consume. Of course, Monsanto and the biotech lobby have their money, big guns and political connections, but we the consumer have the power of the purse and the voices to drown them out and it is time we used them.
More at the link.At this site you will find action items and ways you can get involved with getting GMO... more
-
-
NOTE: When they're not having their markets destroyed by GM contamination, U.S. rice farmers are suffering serious harm from the massive applications of glyphosate onto the Roundup Ready crops around them. The damage can include young rice crops being killed, thinned or burned off, as well as significantly decreased yields, deformed kernels and problems with milling, when the rice is harvested.
---
---
Glyphosate drift to rice a problem for all of us
Mike Wagner, President, Mississippi Rice Council
Farm Press, May 12 2011
http://deltafarmpress.com/rice/glyphosate-drift-rice-problem-all-us
[Editor's note: the following commentary was adapted from a speech by Mike Wagner, rice farmer and president of the Mississippi Rice Council, at this year's Mississippi Agricultural Aviation Association meeting.]
Airplanes and ground applicators have been used to apply amendments to rice crops in Mississippi since the mid-1950s, and the interests and success of rice producers and aerial aviators have become intricately intertwined.
In the late 1990s, technology inserted into cotton, soybeans, and corn allowed over-the-top application of glyphosate onto those crops. The technology immediately revolutionized the production systems for those crops.
The U.S. rice industry never adapted the glyphosate-resistant technology for fear that its product - consumed with virtually no processing - would be forsaken by consumers worldwide. And so, non-transgenic rice is planted in a sea of genetically modified crops that are tolerant to glyphosate.
For years, this seemed to pose no real problem or threat. In the early to mid part of the last decade, however, reports of rice damaged by glyphosate drift began to surface with increasing frequency. Rice specialists noticed that rice that had no obvious damage through the growing season would yield and mill poorly and would exhibit the classic trait associated with late glyphosate drift — the kernel would be shaped like a parrot beak instead of its normally elongated, symmetrical shape.
In 2006, immediately after most crops were planted in the Delta, a wet and windy period set in. Airplanes set out to spray cotton, corn, and soybean fields plagued with weeds. Not many thought much of it at first.
By mid-May, however, reports of dead rice and rice burned off to the ground began to surface. Soon the reports were widespread. It was estimated that 30,000 to 50,000 acres of rice were damaged or destroyed that year by glyphosate.
So much glyphosate seemed to go out in such a short time over such a large area that it was often difficult to identify the offenders. Many farmers were never compensated for damages.
The extensive damage to what was already an economically challenging crop did not set well with Mississippi's rice industry. Frustrations were on two levels: (1) penalties often seemed insignificant and violators (especially repeat violators) were given what our industry perceived to be a wrist-slapping, and (2) the level of liability insurance coverage was in many cases not enough to cover one claim, much less multiple claims.
Mississippi's rice farmers petitioned the state capitol and the Mississippi Department of Agriculture and Commerce for change and got it. The responsibility for the dispensing of penalties for aerial applicators found in violation of rules was given to the Bureau of Plant Industry. Aerial applicators and ground applicators now work with the same penalty structure, commonly called the Penalty Matrix. This provides a uniform system of penalty assessment among all applicators, aerial and ground, and penalties are now meted out in uniform fashion.
In addition, after careful consideration the MAAA acted to increase their minimal liability insurance requirements from $100,000 to $300,000, with a $500,000 aggregate.
One can divide the window of timing and the types of damage that glyphosate drift onto rice can have into two periods.
The first is from emergence to flooding. Rice hit at this time could be thinned, burned off to the ground only to re-emerge in various maturity and health stages, or killed. In some cases, with increased expense, it can be managed so that the crop grows out of the damage and goes on to make a normal or somewhat reduced yield.
If the young crop is killed, it can be replanted with rice (which research indicates will generally suffer a yield loss), or if pre-emerge herbicides applied to the rice allow, the land can be planted to an alternate crop.
Either effort will increase production costs and generally produce a crop with decreased yield potential.
The second distinct period that glyphosate damage occurs - and by far the most detrimental - is from a short time before internode elongation to the time when the crop begins to dry down. Mississippi's rice crop generally begins its internode elongation period around June 1, and it is at this time that much yield potential is set.
Damage inflicted by derelict glyphosate during this period is often invisible and not noticed until harvest. Damage is characterized by significantly decreased yields and milling and the rice often exhibits the first signal that it has been hit with drift — kernels shaped like a parrot's beak.
Damage occurring at this time does not allow for an alternate crop to be replanted. Consequently, the farmer has two nooses around his neck: (1) he is stuck with a crop that will generate lower revenues, and (2) he has already incurred nearly all expenses that are associated with that crop. With anticipated 2011 direct expenses between $450 and $600 per acre and indirect expenses ranging from $200 to $300 per acre — total expenses range from $650 to $900 per acre — one can see that any losses can be staggering. This is a losing proposition for our rice industry, and one that continues to occur. Our alarm is warranted.
cont.NOTE: When they're not having their markets destroyed by GM contamination, U.S.... more
-
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ql0mo-5jPbc&feature=player_embedded
A quarter of a million Indian farmers have committed suicide in the last 16 years—an average of one suicide every 30 minutes. The crisis has ballooned with economic liberalization that has removed agricultural subsidies and opened Indian agriculture to the global market. Small farmers are often trapped in a cycle of insurmountable debt, leading many to take their lives out of sheer desperation. We speak with Smita Narula of the Center for Human Rights and Global Justice at New York University Law School, co-author of a new report on farmer suicides in India.
AMY GOODMAN: We turn to the issue of farmer suicides in India, where a quarter of a million farmers have committed suicide in the last 16 years. On average, that figure suggests one farmer commits suicide every 30 minutes.
Today, the Center for Human Rights and Global Justice at NYU Law School will release a report called "Every Thirty Minutes: Farmer Suicides, Human Rights and the Agrarian Crisis in India."
The agricultural sector in India has become more vulnerable to global markets as a result of economic liberalization. Reforms in the country have included the removal of agricultural subsidies and the opening of Indian agriculture to the global market. These reforms have led to increased costs, while reducing yields and profits for many farmers.
As a result, small farmers are often trapped in a cycle of insurmountable debt, leading many to take their lives out of sheer desperation. The rate of suicide is highest among cotton farmers. Like other cash crops in India, the cotton industry is increasingly dominated by foreign multinational corporations that tend to promote genetically modified cottonseed and often control the cost, quality and availability of agricultural inputs.
To discuss this issue, we're joined by Smita Narula, faculty director of the Center for Human Rights and Global Justice at NYU.
Welcome to Democracy Now!
SMITA NARULA: Good morning.
AMY GOODMAN: Talk about this report that you are just releasing today.
SMITA NARULA: Our major finding for this report is that all the issues that you just described are major human rights issues. And what we're faced with in India is a human rights crisis of epic proportions. The crisis affects the human rights of Indian farmers and their family members in extremely profound ways. We found that their rights to life, to water, food and adequate standard of living, and their right to an effective remedy, is extremely affected by this crisis. Additionally, the government has hard human rights legal obligations to respond to the crisis, but we've found that it has failed, by and large, to take any effective measures to address the suicides that are taking place.
AMY GOODMAN: I mean, this number is unbelievable. Thirty—every 30 minutes, an Indian farmer commits suicide?
SMITA NARULA: And that's been going on for years and years. And what these intense numbers don't reveal are two things. One is that the numbers themselves are failing to capture the enormity of the problem. In what we call a failure of information on the part of the Indian government, entire categories of farmers are completely left out of the purview of farm suicide statistics, because they don't formally own title to land. This includes women farmers, Dalit, or so-called lower caste farmers, as well as Adivasi, or tribal community farmers. In addition, the government's programs and the relief programs that they've offered fail to capture not only this broad category, but also fail to provide timely debt relief and compensation or address broader structural issues that are leading to these suicides in the country.
AMY GOODMAN: Talk about the issue of globalization and how it's affecting these farmers.
SMITA NARULA: Sure. So, basically, ultimately, the proximate cause for a number of these suicides is farmer indebtedness. What lies behind that indebtedness is two decades of market liberalization in India, which have resulted in two simultaneous processes. First, the government has withdrawn significantly from the agricultural sector. It has reduced subsidies. It has decreased access to rural credit. Irrigation is insufficient and doesn't reach most farmers who need it. And at the same time, it has encouraged a switch over to cash crop cultivation, of which cotton is one example.
Simultaneously, the market has been opened up to global competitors, which makes Indian farmers extremely vulnerable. And at the same time, foreign multinationals now dominate industries, such as the cotton industry, including dominating the key inputs that are needed for cotton. In the case of cotton, in particular, the genetically modified Bt cottonseed has been promoted so effectively in India that it now dominates the entire sector, and between its cost, quality and availability, has an enormous impact on farmer costs and profits and yields to the point that it's landing them in enormous debt. And many of them, ironically, are actually consuming the very pesticide that they went into debt to purchase, to kill themselves when they can't escape that cycle of debt.
AMY GOODMAN: They're consuming the pesticide.
SMITA NARULA: That's correct.
snip
AMY GOODMAN: Talk about genetically modified seeds and U.S. multinational corporations.
SMITA NARULA: So, genetically modified seeds. Bt cottonseed is the cottonseed input that dominates the cotton industry now. And what the genetic modification promises to do is to produce a toxin within the seed that kills a very common pest that affects the cotton crop in India. The Bt cottonseed, which is — has been marketed by Monsanto, among other multinationals, requires two resources that are already scarce for most Indian smallholder farmers. That's money and water. Bt cottonseeds cost anywhere from two times to 10 times as much as regular cottonseed, and they also require a great deal more water in order to yield successful crops. The farmers often go to private moneylenders, who charge exorbitant interest rates, to purchase the seeds, on the promises and based on aggressive marketing that they will bring greater financial security. But then, because 65 percent of cotton farms in India are rain-fed and don't have access to irrigation, the crops inevitably fail. And also, increasing drought has made that the case for many farmers. So they've gone into insurmountable debt to purchase the inputs. They don't have the yields. They repeat this cycle for a couple of seasons. And by the end of it, they're simply trapped in a cycle that they can't get out of, and they consume the very pesticide that they purchased, in order to kill themselves. And—http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ql0mo-5jPbc&feature=player_embedded
A quarter... more
-
-
It doesn’t take a Nostradamus to see the host of calamities our primeval mindset is capable of manifesting. What happened to Jackson Browne singing about the healing power of the sun? After Three Mile Island nuclear energy publicly became the unacceptable risk Dr. Helen Caldicott warned us about. We canceled canoe trips to protest at General Electric until comfort became our cause allowing nuclear megawatts a backstage pass into the main stream. Today the land of the rising plume is seeing solar in a different light after a crippling 9.0 magnitude earthquake rocked their tenuous power grid. Instead of the one inch per year average, tectonic plates shifted Japan 13 feet in moments equaling 157 years of time travel.It doesn’t take a Nostradamus to see the host of calamities our primeval mindset... more
-
-
It turns out that Monsanto's Roundup herbicide might not be nearly as safe as people have thought, but the media is staying mum on the revelation.
If the link between the newly discovered organism and livestock infertility and miscarriages proves true, it will be a major story. But there is already a major story here: the lack of independent research on GMOs, the reluctance of U.S. journals to publish studies critical of glyphosate and GMOs, and the near total silence from the media on Huber's leaked letter.
http://www.alternet.org/story/150733/why_is_damning_new_evidence_about_monsanto%27s_most_widely_used_herbicide_being_silenced?page=entireIt turns out that Monsanto's Roundup herbicide might not be nearly as safe as... more
-
-
Retailers have designated this month as the first NON GMO month. On the Sustainable Agriculture Group I have been featuring stories related to this and how you can help us reach the consumer tipping point in America that will facilitate ridding our food of this irresponsible technology.
This is a conversation with Jeffrey Smith regarding how you can contribute to the tipping point of maintaining food safety, food sovereignty, biodiversity and environmental democracy. GMOS are untested, unstable and unpredictable in our environment, food sources, and bodies. There is some good information at this link as well to work to keep our food safe and healthy.
Save Our Seeds
No To GMORetailers have designated this month as the first NON GMO month. On the Sustainable... more
-
-
Reality's biting for Monsanto. John Gilbert, an Iowa farmer tells the Christian Science Monitor about GM crop uptake: "A lot of it, to be perfectly honest, is herd mentality. They believe Monsanto when they say it's going to yield more." But scepticism has begun to set in, with the Christian Science Monitor noting that a common criticism now being leveled at GM firms like Monsanto is that crop yield increases have largely been the result of advances in conventional breeding, but that those features are only being made available in strains sold with genetically-modified traits as well.
---
---
1.Monsanto's Fortunes Turn Sour
The New York Times, 4 October 2010
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/05/business/05monsanto.html?_r=1
As recently as late December, Monsanto was named "company of the year" by Forbes magazine. Last week, the company earned a different accolade from Jim Cramer, the television stock market commentator. "This may be the worst stock of 2010," he proclaimed.
Monsanto, the giant of agricultural biotechnology, has been buffeted by setbacks this year that have prompted analysts to question whether its winning streak from creating ever more expensive genetically engineered crops is coming to an end.
The company’s stock, which rose steadily over several years to peak at around $145 a share in mid-2008, closed Monday at $47.77, having fallen about 42 percent since the beginning of the year. Its earnings for the fiscal year that ended in August, which will be announced Wednesday, are expected to be well below projections made at the beginning of the year, and the company has abandoned its profit goal for 2012 as well.
The latest blow came last week, when early returns from this year’s harvest showed that Monsanto’s newest product, SmartStax corn, which contains an unprecedented eight inserted genes, was providing yields no higher than the company’s less expensive corn that contains only three foreign genes.
Monsanto has already been forced to sharply cut prices on SmartStax and on its newest soybean seeds, called Roundup Ready 2 Yield, as sales fell below projections.
But there is more. Sales of Monsanto’s Roundup, the widely used herbicide, has collapsed this year under an onslaught of low-priced generics made in China. Weeds are growing resistant to Roundup, dampening the future of the entire Roundup Ready crop franchise. And the Justice Department is investigating Monsanto for possible antitrust violations.
Until now, Monsanto’s main challenge has come from opponents of genetically modified crops, who have slowed their adoption in Europe and some other regions. Now, however, the outspoken critics also include farmers and investors who were once in Monsanto’s camp.
“My personal view is that they overplayed their hand,” William R. Young, managing director of ChemSpeak and a consultant to investors in the chemical industry, said of Monsanto. “They are going to have to demonstrate to the farmer the advantage of their products.”
Brett D. Begemann, Monsanto’s executive vice president for seeds and traits, said the setbacks were not reflective of systemic management problems and that the company was already moving to deal with them.
“Farmers clearly gave us some feedback that we have made adjustments from,” he said in an interview Monday.
Mr. Begemann said that Monsanto used to introduce new seeds at a price that gave farmers two thirds and Monsanto one third of the extra profits that would come from higher yields or lower pest-control costs. But with SmartStax corn and Roundup Ready 2 soybeans, the company’s pricing aimed for a 50-50 split.
That backfired as American farmers grew only 6 million acres of Roundup Ready 2 soybeans this year, below the company’s goal of 8 million to 10 million acres, and only 3 million acres of SmartStax corn, below the goal of 4 million.Reality's biting for Monsanto. John Gilbert, an Iowa farmer tells the Christian... more
-
-
“Farmers who expanded farm size are finding it difficult, if not impossible, to manage the larger operations now that additional time is required for weed management.”
The U.S. Congress got an earful from farmers, university researchers and pro-food groups during the first round of hearings into the increase in super weeds, deemed so because some are becoming resistant to multiple modes of actions and families of chemistries used in popular herbicides.
Eyes and ears for the U.S. House of Representatives in the case of super weeds is the Domestic Policy Oversight Subcommittee. The late July hearings were called to evaluate the impact of genetically engineered, herbicide-resistant crops on the environment and on the abundance and quality of the U.S. food supply.
The Congressional Committee is chaired by Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio). The hearings are titled “Are Superweeds an Outgrowth of USDA Biotech Policy?”
An Indiana farmer Troy Roush, who was the target of a 2000 suit brought forth by Monsanto, gave a scathing indictment of GM plants. The suit was dropped by Monsanto, but Roush says he and his family spent two years fighting it.
In his testimony to the House sub-committee, Roush documented the development of glyphosate resistant weeds on his 5,500 acre family farm.
“In 2005, we first began to encounter problems with glyphosate resistance in marestail and lambsquarters in both our soybean and corn crops. Since there had been considerable discussion in the agricultural press about weeds developing resistance or tolerance to Roundup, I contacted a Monsanto weed scientist to discuss the problems I was experiencing on the farm and what could be done to eradicate the problematic weeds.
“Despite well documented proof that glyphosate tolerant weeds were becoming a significant problem, the Monsanto scientist denied that resistance existed and instructed me to increase my application rates,” the Indiana farmer reported.
“The increase in application rates proved ineffectual, and I was forced to turn to alternative methods for weed management including the use of tillage and other chemistry.
“In 2007, the weed problems had gotten so severe that we turned to an ALS inhibitor marketed as Canopy to alleviate the problem in our preplant, burndown herbicide application.
“In 2008, we were forced to include the use of 2,4-D and an ALS residual, to our herbicide programs. Like most farmers, we are very sensitive to environmental issues and we were very reluctant to return to using tillage and more toxic herbicides for weed control. However, no other solutions were then or are now readily available to eradicate the weed problems caused by development of glyphosate resistance,” Roush said.
There is little doubt the discovery of genetically altered, target herbicide tolerant plants has made billions of dollars for U.S. farmers. Few can argue the management decisions on farms across the U.S. being made easier by having this technology.
In fact, the ease of operation has made good land out of marginal land and some contend, good farmers out of fair farmers. Again, there is little doubt that the introduction of Roundup Ready cotton and soybeans has allowed growers in the Southeast to expand their acreage — a reality that is coming back to bite some large farmers who are having problems managing weeds with resistance to multiple families of herbicides.
Roush, who is also vice-president of the National Corn Growers Association, says bigger farms with multiple herbicide resistance problems are in great danger.
“The increased ease of use and convenience of herbicide tolerant crops enabled many farmers to significantly increase crop acreage which helped to offset higher production costs and, in some cases, lower yields. Biotech companies encouraged farm expansion by offering discounts for buying seed in bulk.
“The advent of glyphosate tolerant weeds necessitated the return to using tillage for weed control, eliminating the time savings that was initially afforded by using biotech crops.
“Farmers who expanded farm size are now finding it difficult, if not impossible, to manage the larger operations now that additional time is required for weed management,” the Indiana farmer said.
The driving force behind the congressional look into super weeds is the Center for Food Safety (CFS), which is a project of the International Center for Technology Assessment (ICTA). CFS is headed by Andrew Kimbrell, who was mentored by Jeremy Rifkin at the Foundation on Economic Trends.
For sure there is plenty of ammunition to be fired by both sides: Corn (85 percent of U.S. production is GM), soy (91 percent GM), cotton (88 percent GM), canola (85 percent GM) and sugar beets (95 percent GM) are all genetically engineered to withstand large amounts of glyphosate herbicide. Since the introduction of Roundup Ready technology yields per acre have gone up and continue to increase, especially for corn and soybeans.
Worldwide the adoption of GM products is astounding. The latest figures come from 2008, at which time herbicide tolerance deployed in soybeans, corn, canola, cotton and alfalfa occupied 63 percent, or roughly 200 million acres of the global biotech area of 325 million acres. HT soybeans are currently grown mostly in the United States, Argentina, Brazil, and other South American countries, accounting for 70 percent of worldwide soybean production.
Insect resistance to GM products, primarily based on different genes from the soil bacterium Bacillus thuringiensis, worldwide is estimated at 50 million acres. These Bt genes control the European corn borer, the corn rootworm, different stemborers, and of most importance to the Southeast, bollworm and budworm in cotton
Kimbrell, an attorney and founder and head of the watchdog group Center for Food Safety, testifying before the House Subcommittee laid much of the blame on development and proliferation of super weeds at the feet of the U.S. Department of Agriculture.
“The history of USDA’s oversight of genetically engineered (GE) crops is littered with failures. The Government Accounting Office (GAO), the USDA’s own Office of Inspector General (OIG), and the Federal Courts have repeatedly condemned USDA for oversight deficiencies and inadequate management,” Kimbrell testified.
“Regulation of GE crops has in part been defined by judicial decisions in lawsuits brought by CFS and others on behalf of farmers, consumers, and environmental groups. American agriculture cannot afford such “regulation by litigation,” an approach that has become standard operating procedure at USDA,” Kimbrell said
In response to the testimony from farmers, watchdog groups and university scientists, Rep. Kucinich said, “the Agriculture Department (USDA) has been too quick to approve new varieties of herbicide-tolerant crops and other biotech products.
“Now, more than ever, farmers need to have a Department of Agriculture that takes care to preserve and protect the farming environment for generations to come,” Kucinich concluded.“Farmers who expanded farm size are finding it difficult, if not impossible, to... more
-
-
NOTE: For more about Professor Andrés Carrasco and his research, which found that glyphosate caused birth defects in frogs even in very low concentrations:
http://bit.ly/ZsLBV
---
---
Argentina: Threats deny community access to research
Amnesty International
12 August 2010
http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/asset/AMR13/005/2010/en/303e9ee6-9138-405f-97fc-ed58965b76d0/amr130052010en.html
On 7 August, violence and threats in the remote northern Argentinian town of La Leonesa stopped community activists hearing a talk by a renowned scientist about his findings of the health impact of chemicals sprayed on rice and soya crops.
On Saturday 7 August, community activists from La Leonesa, a small town located within an area of large scale rice production in the Argentinian Chaco Department, went to attend a talk that was to be given by Professor Andres Carrasco, a scientist and doctor from the Buenos Aires University Medical School. A delegation of two provincial deputies, a former public official and members of the neighbouring community of Resistencia also came to La Leonesa to hear the talk. Professor Andres Carrasco's research, concluded in 2009, highlighted the negative effects of glyphosate, a commonly-used agro-chemical, on embryos.
On arrival in La Leonesa at around 4pm, the delegation headed for the school where the talk was due to take place. However, the talk was suspended because the delegation was attacked by a group of around 100 people who threatened them and beat them. One person has since suffered from lower body paralysis after being hit on his spine, and another is undergoing neurological examinations after receiving blows to the head. The former provincial Sub-Secretary of Human Rights, Marcelo Salgado, was struck in the face and left unconscious. Dr Carrasco and his colleague shut themselves in a car, and were surrounded by people making violent threats and beating the car for two hours. Members of the community were injured and a journalist's camera equipment was damaged.
Members of the community who witnessed the incident have implicated local officials in the attack, as well as a local rice-producer and his workers and security guards. They strongly believe that the violence was promoted by them, and motivated by the powerful economic interests behind local agro-industry. Despite calls to local authorities asking for help, the police were slow to respond and failed to send sufficient reinforcements to stop the violence.
PLEASE WRITE IMMEDIATELY in Spanish or your own language:
*Call for an impartial investigation of the violence in La Leonesa on 7 August and prosecution of all those responsible, with particular focus on the possible involvement of local authorities in instigating or encouraging the violence and/or failing to prevent or halt violence by third parties;
*Call for swift action to ensure the safety and security of the residents of La Leonesa and neighbouring communities;
*Urge local authorities to protect the right to freedom of information and expression in order to allow the communities living in agro-industrial areas to seek, receive and disseminate information, including in public forums, around the possible effects of widespread spraying of crops;
*Where credible evidence regarding the negative health impact of spraying of agro-chemicals exists, health authorities must carry out monitoring and investigations in line with their responsibility to respect the right to health.
PLEASE SEND APPEALS BEFORE 22 SEPTEMBER 2010 TO:
Sr. Gobernador
Jorge Milton Capitanich
Gobierno del Pueblo de la Provincia del Chaco, Marcelo T. Alvear 145
Resistencia, Chaco
CP3500, Argentina
Fax: +54 9 3722 434 202
Email: diego.bernachea@chaco.gov.arThis e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
Salutation: Sr. Gobernador
Minister of Interior
Cdr. Aníbal Florencio Randazzo
25 de Mayo 101/145
C1002ABC – Buenos Aires
Argentina
Fax: +54 11 4345 3336
Email: info@mininterior.gov.arThis e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
Salutation: Sr. Ministro
And copies to:
Dr Juan Luis Manzar
Ministro de Salud
Av. 9 de Julio 1925
Cdad. Aut. de Buenos Aires
C1073ABA
Fax: 00 54 11 4381 6075
Email: consultas@msal.gov.arThis e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
Salutation: Sr. Ministro
Also send copies to diplomatic representatives accredited to your country. Check with your section office if sending appeals after the above date.
URGENT ACTION
THREATS DENY COMMUNITY ACCESS TO RESEARCH
ADditional Information
In April 2009, Dr Andres Carrasco finalised his 15-month study into the impact of glyphosate, a herbicide commonly used on soya and rice crops. His findings pointed at the negative effects of glyphosate- in doses much lower than those used in agro-industry- on the morphology of embryos. His findings provoked a hostile media campaign aimed at undermining the legitimacy of his findings, and he received anonymous threats.
Activists, lawyers and health workers in areas of Argentina where agro-industry and glyphosate spraying are widespread have started to conduct their own studies, registering cases of foetal malformations and increased cancer rates in local hospitals. To date, no systematic epidemiological study of these reported phenomena has been carried out by State authorities.NOTE: For more about Professor Andrés Carrasco and his research, which found... more
-
-
By SCOTT SONNER (AP) – 15 hours ago
RENO, Nev. — A federal appeals court on Tuesday cleared the way for the roundup of more than 2,000 wild horses in California and Nevada, rejecting critics' claims that the free-roaming mustangs have a legal right to remain on the range.
In an after-hours order, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco refused to grant an emergency stay sought by animal rights groups ahead of the scheduled roundup Wednesday.
The order came as lawyers for the Obama administration mounted their most vigorous defense to date for rounding up wild horses in the West, arguing in court filings that leaving the overpopulated herds on public rangeland would do the mustangs more harm than good.
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jMTnDwrTwTRtYPwVG3GCYwf_Yu-QD9HH01I01By SCOTT SONNER (AP) – 15 hours ago
RENO, Nev. — A federal appeals... more
-
-
EXTRACTS: ...in the year 2009-10 farmers cultivating cotton through organic practices earned 200% more net income than farmers who grew Genetically Engineered cotton [Bt cotton].
Bt cotton farmers... use 26 different pesticides, including pesticides targeting pests that the GE cotton is supposed to control, ... also lose financially due to their higher input costs.
In the region of Andhra Pradesh... the Bt cotton farmers incurred 65% higher debt...
---
---
Organic farming gives Indian farmers greater financial security
http://greenpeace.in/safefood/news-blog/organic-farming-gives-indian-farmers-greater-financial-security/
Hyderabad, 15th June, 2010: A Greenpeace report released today said the monetary benefits of organic cotton farming are much greater than using the Genetically Engineered variety that makes farmers more vulnerable to financial collapse due to high debts and increased costs of cultivation.
The report titled "Picking Cotton – The choice between organic and genetically-engineered cotton for farmers in South India" shows that in the year 2009-10 farmers cultivating cotton through organic practices earned 200% more net income than farmers who grew Genetically Engineered cotton [Bt cotton].
The Greenpeace report is a comparative analysis of two methods of agriculture among cotton farmers in Andhra Pradesh. It not only shows the economic benefit of ecological farming (in this case organic) but also that Genetically Engineered (GE) cotton, despite using many toxic pesticides, still has greater crop loss to pests.
"Our study illustrates how farmers growing GE cotton face high debts and high costs of cultivation, becoming more vulnerable to financial collapses”, said Dr Reyes Tirado, Scientist, Greenpeace International, who authored the report.
Bt cotton1 farmers not only use 26 different pesticides, including pesticides targeting pests that the GE cotton is supposed to control, but also lose financially due to their higher input costs.
In the region of Andhra Pradesh the cost of cultivation is much higher for Bt cotton farmers. The Bt cotton farmers incurred 65% higher debt –accumulated during 2008/09 and 2009/10– than the non-Bt organic cotton farmers.
The farmer distress in the state had lead to the central government announcing a 5 year relief package for farmers amounting to 20,000 crores in the year 2008.
"It is preposterous that on the one hand government dolls out thousands of crores in the name of bringing relief to farmers while on the other they permit and promote Bt cotton cultivation and ensure that the farmer can never escape the debt treadmill.” said Dr G.V Ramanjaneyalu, Executive Director of Centre for Sustainable Agriculture who was present at the report release.
The controversies around Bt cotton have finally forced the Genetic Engineering Approval Committee, the agency responsible for the commercial release of GE crops in the country, to do a review of its performance since 2002, the year it was released.
"Bt cotton has only benefitted the multinational seed giants like Monsanto who has earned 1580 crore Rupees as royalty from its patented Bt cotton seed since its release" [1] said Rajesh Krishnan, sustainable agriculture campaigner with Greenpeace India. He concluded that "Cotton farming that uses ecological practices and avoids genetically engineered seeds and agrochemicals is the most beneficial for Indian farmers."EXTRACTS: ...in the year 2009-10 farmers cultivating cotton through organic practices... more
-
-
In the USSC case Monsanto vs. Geertson Seed lies the future of food as we know it. In this case lies the environmental effects of transgenic contamination of land, water, soil, and the food we eat. In this case rests the future of food freedom and sovereignty not just for the U.S but for the world. This is the case that will set the precedent for domestic and foreign seed markets as well as the fate of organic farming.
That is why the Sustainable Agriculture Group is going to be keeping track of this case until its conclusion. I will do my best to keep up with current news on this landmark trial that more than likely will get no play in our national media.
And just as a sidenote: Some say Current has gone flat of late, well, I say that may well be true to a point, but the site and station are only as good as the people who stay here and report the news. So I hope others will discuss this and join in disseminating the important information we need to know regarding this important issue for our environment, biodiversity, sustainability, economy, and health.
Thank you.
http://current.com/groups/sustainable-agricultureIn the USSC case Monsanto vs. Geertson Seed lies the future of food as we know it. In... more
-
-
BUENOS AIRES -(Dow Jones)- In a ruling bearing potentially far-reaching implications, an appellate court in Argentina's Santa Fe province this week upheld a decision blocking farmers from spraying agrochemicals near populated areas.
The ruling blocks the use of chemicals such as the widely used herbicide glyphosate within 800 meters of the town of San Jorge, and aerial spraying within 1,500 meters of the town.
While the decision is limited to the area around San Jorge, other courts in the farming province are likely to follow suit if residents seek similar court action.
The court found that farmers "have been indiscriminately using agrochemicals such as glyphosate, applied in open violation of existing laws [causing] severe damage to the environment and to the health and quality of life of the residents."
A backlash is building in the country against the increasing reliance on transgenic soybeans and the herbicide widely used in their cultivation. Soybeans dominate the country's farm output, but growing concern over the environmental impact of soybean-cultivation practices has spurred a legal and legislative assault.
Last year, the Argentine Association of Environmental Lawyers filed a case at the Supreme Court to halt the use of glyphosate, which virtually all of the soybeans grown in Argentina have been genetically modified to resist. Up to 200 million liters of the herbicide are sprayed across the farm belt each season. The court has yet to decide on whether to hear the case.
Genetically modified soybeans resistant to glyphosate were introduced to Argentina in 1996 by St. Louis-based biotech giant Monsanto Co. (MON). Now, with over half of all cultivated land going to soy in the last season, virtually all of the soybeans grown in Argentina uses Monsanto's technology. Monsanto didn't return a call seeking comment.
continuedBUENOS AIRES -(Dow Jones)- In a ruling bearing potentially far-reaching implications,... more
-
-
A case involving genetically modified (GM) food will be in front of a federal judge Friday in San Francisco.
Researchers say the future of generations of Americans hangs in the balance, as the judge could order a halt to the planting or harvesting of any GM “Roundup Ready” sugar beets in the U.S.
This would strike a blow to growers in the Red River Valley, where more sugar beets are grown than any other region. Most of these growers have already been using Roundup Ready seed varieties for two years.
Scientists say that is no type of positive proof. GM foods are put through a complicated unnatural process. Our reporter April Scott took this on just a few days ago in her article, While We Were Sleeping... GM Food and the Brink of No Return[1]
"The process behind genetically modified food involves a careful re-configuration of genes combining e-coli bacteria, soil bacteria and the cauliflower mosaic virus that causes tumors in plants. They add an antibiotic and then artificially force it into plant cells with a gene invasion technique. All this is so farmers can douse nearly unlimited amounts of Roundup Herbicide on the crops and the plants won’t die."
The Organic & Non-GMO Report published an article in January, stating that scientists are finding many negative impacts of Roundup Ready GM crops.
They say the USDA doesn’t want to publicize studies showing negative impacts.
They spoke to Robert Kremer, a microbiologist with the US Department of Agriculture’s Agricultural Research Service and an adjunct professor in the Division of Plant Sciences at the University of Missouri.
He is co-author of one of five papers published in the October 2009 issue of The European Journal of Agronomy that found negative impacts of Roundup herbicide, which is used extensively with Roundup Ready genetically modified crops.
Kremer has been studying the impacts of glyphosate, the primary ingredient in Monsanto’s Roundup herbicide, since 1997.
The Organic & Non-GMO Report interviewed Mr. Kremer about his research and the reluctance of the USDA to publicize the findings of the five papers.A case involving genetically modified (GM) food will be in front of a federal judge... more
-
