For a technology that has sucked up billions of research dollars and prolonged agriculture's dependence on chemical inputs, GMOs (genetically modified organisms) have yet to justify their role in a world desperate for more sustainable ways to produce healthier food for more people. In a recent report by the Union of Concerned Scientists entitled "Failure to Yield," a summary of on-farm production levels of genetically modified crops showed less than marginal gains in actual yield. In fact, the review concluded that "no currently available transgenic varieties enhance the intrinsic yield of any crops."
Let's Put GMO Food on the Shelf
Such findings beg the question: Who needs GMO food anyway? If GMOs are developed to increase yields, then they have failed. If they are marketed to reduce costs for farmers, and the price of GMO corn seed is now three times greater than it was just a few years ago, they have failed yet again. If these seeds are engineered to use less herbicides when, according to recent indications, many weeds are becoming Roundup-resistant, requiring a cocktail of herbicide applications in certain farming areas while crop land is just being abandoned in others, they have most certainly failed!
GMO defenders cite net yield increases per acre due to weed and pest management traits, apparently comparing GMO-chemical regimes with non-GMO-chemical regimes in traditional intensive corn-soy production systems. They don't compare the genetically modified pest-management results with non-chemical systems where organic corn tolerates higher weed populations without yield loss, and where insect damage becomes insignificant in most years once basic crop rotations are established and soil health improves. It seems GMO defenders have failed to take the varying approaches of these two systems into account, which leaves us with only a chapter of the whole story.
GMO Food Just Doesn't Make Sense
Despite the failures of GMOs, it is clear that their developers have not failed at making huge profits in a system where farmers are forced to market on volume, and have no market rewards for nutritional quality or penalties for ecological impact.
So what have consumers gained? Perhaps the answer is unclear. But I do know why we in the organic movement are so dead against GMO food. The answer is pretty simple: Genetically engineered seeds just don't make sense. Here's why:
• How can a seed variety that is costly to patent (and legally can't be saved for replanting) help poor farmers around the world?
• How can a seed that needs increased levels of toxins to control weeds be the safest option, ecologically or from a human standpoint?
• How can a seed that is artificially injected with foreign proteins be harmless to eat?
GMO Food and Human Health: The Hidden Consequences
Whether genetically modified foods are safe for human consumption will remain a controversial issue. Yet some scientists who have been quieted or marginalized have found serious concerns about the safety of GMOs in laboratory animal studies. In many investigations involving GMO-fed animals, there have been cases of underdeveloped organs, reproductive problems, accelerated aging and even death.
As the four As (allergies, asthma, autism, and ADD) rapidly increase in U.S. health statistics, we must consider that GMOs could certainly be one of the causes. As a matter of fact, in a recent position paper by the American Academy of Environmental Medicine, physicians across the country called for a moratorium on GMO foods because "there is more than a casual association between GM foods and adverse health effects."For a technology that has sucked up billions of research dollars and prolonged... more
One half of the duo known as Speidi made it onto the cover of 'Playboy,' which means she made it into 'We've Got You Covered,' Conor Knighton's weekly roundup of what's in the glossies. He reads them so you don't have to. Also includes Vegas' money woes, aliens, Sherri Shepherd, Barack and the gays, Hollywood salaries, Patricia Heaton on 'Who Wants to Be a Millionaire,' Carrie Underwood's scrape, and sheep!
We've Got You Covered is a recurring segment on Current TV's weekly television show, infoMania. In each episode of We've Got You Covered, Conor Knighton catches you up on everything you need to know about what's in this week's magazines. For more We've Got You Covered visit: http://current.com/groups/weve-got-you-covered/ and Current TV.
infoMania is a half-hour satirical news show that airs on Current TV. The show puts a comedic spin on the 24-hour chaos and information overload brought about by the constant bombardment of the media. Hosted by Conor Knighton and co-starring Brett Erlich, Sarah Haskins, Ben Hoffman, Bryan Safi and Sergio Cilli, the show airs on Thursdays at 10 pm Eastern and Pacific Times and can be found online at http://current.com/infomania/ or on Current TV. And make sure to check out our facebook profile for special features at http://infomaniafacebook.com.One half of the duo known as Speidi made it onto the cover of 'Playboy,' which means... more
This week on infoMania the news wants you to know they're hip to Woodstock's 40th anniversary, two shows that celebrate the strange joy of child beauty pageants, Bryan discovers that lesbian kisses equal TV ratings gold, Sergio looks at the hottest pop videos on YouTube, and Brett explores the free health care option that is the world wide web.
infoMania is a half-hour satirical news show that airs on Current TV. The show puts a comedic spin on the 24-hour chaos and information overload brought about by the constant bombardment of the media. Hosted by Conor Knighton and co-starring Brett Erlich, Sarah Haskins, Ben Hoffman, Bryan Safi and Sergio Cilli, the show airs on Thursdays at 10 pm Eastern and Pacific Times and can be found online at http://current.com/infomania/ or on Current TV. And make sure to check out our facebook profile for special features at http://infomaniafacebook.com.This week on infoMania the news wants you to know they're hip to Woodstock's 40th... more
Where is the outrage about the toxic pollution being spread by these vipers? Did it die with Rachel Carson? I know it didn't die in me, and I am getting very tired of reading article after article about Monsanto getting its way to not only pollute our water, but to pollute our food, our land, and the future of our children. This isn't about what THEY WANT.
BAN GLYPHOSATE.
Excerpt:
As it races to replenish phosphate supplies for its weed-killing cash machine Roundup, Monsanto Co. insists its history of polluting southeastern Idaho’s high country shouldn’t prevent it from digging fresh open pits here.
Three of the St. Louis-based chemical company’s previous mines in this region of broad valleys and forested ridges are under federal Superfund authority; a fourth is now violating federal clean water laws. In all, several companies are responsible for polluting at least 17 sites southwest of Yellowstone and Grand Teton national parks.
With its current mine in the region nearly played out, Monsanto now wants federal regulators to let the company open a new one by 2011, contending safeguards on the project will keep poisons out of the Blackfoot River. The trout stream just a few hundred yards away is among 15 southeastern Idaho waterways where selenium that leaked from mines exceeds legal state levels.
David Farnsworth, Monsanto mining manager, walked the 1,400-acre Blackfoot Bridge site in late July, describing a liner meant to stop pollution. Even if it fails, he said, vast containment ponds below will keep poisons out of rivers downstream.
"The best laid plans show that Mother Nature changes the game plan," Farnsworth said. "The water shouldn’t become contaminated, but if it does, there are the means to handle it."
Marv Hoyt, of the Greater Yellowstone Coalition in Idaho Falls, counters Monsanto and fertilizer makers J.R. Simplot Co. and Agrium Inc. have squandered all trust with their past pollution.
At J.R. Simplot’s Conda site, hundreds of sheep died in the 1990s after eating toxic forage. Nearby, Canada’s Agrium is spending $500,000 at its North Maybe Mine to control selenium discharges blamed by state wildlife officials for killing all aquatic life in a creek.
_____________
Haven't they gotten away with enough with DDT, Agent Orange, and PCBS?
WAKE UP AMERICA.Where is the outrage about the toxic pollution being spread by these vipers? Did it... more
Since Argentina's soybean boom in the late 90s, clinical studies have been conducted in communities reporting suspiciously high rates of cancer, birth defects, and neonatal mortality. However, industry leaders also refute these clinical studies, saying they are anecdotal and have little scientific basis. Among a corporate controlled scientific community it is notoriously difficult for clinical studies to "prove" the link between environmental contamination and health results, since life is not a "controlled environment."
In a small town bordering soy farms in the province of Cordoba, the Mothers of Ituzaingo group was formed in response to sudden increases in the local cancer rate. Ituzaingo has 5,000 residents—in 2001 they reported more than 200 cases of cancer and by 2009 that number has jumped to 300. This is 41 times the national average. (I conducted this calculation: the national average or percentage is 0.145 of the population diagnosed with cancer—in this town 6% of the population has cancer.) They have fought for regulations against fumigating soy crops in residential areas and a ban of agrochemicals.
Sofia Gatica is an activist with the Mothers of Ituzaingo. Sofia joined the grassroots group after suffering the death of her newborn baby. Her daughter was still born with a malformed kidney. Her 14-year-old daughter is currently undergoing treatment for toxicity in the blood. The toxin was identified as endosulfan, an insecticide used on soy fields.
Gatica describes the many birth defects that have occurred locally. "We have had children born with only two thumbs and no fingers, malformed kidneys, children with six fingers. We have had babies born without an anus, or with malformations in the intestines."
After years of documenting the tragedies, the Mothers of Itzuaingo decided to take their case to the courts. In 2006, they won their lawsuit in the provincial Supreme Court. Based on their findings the court ruled to prohibit the use of agrochemicals within 1,000 meters of residential areas. The decision applies to the province of Cordoba while in the rest of the country farmers can continue to fumigate with no regulations.
The case of Ituzaingo is not an isolated case. For nearly a decade, communities have reported health problems from aerial and terrestrial fumigation with the arsenal of pesticides and herbicides used in industrial soy farming. And for nearly a decade they have been ignored. "Communities are literally fumigated with planes or with the terrestrial 'mosquito repellant' fumigations (similar to the DEET trucks used to fumigate U.S. neighborhoods in the 50s). Cases of health problems, miscarriages, birth defects, and cancer rates have multiplied at an alarming rate in communities surrounding the soy fields," says Carlos A. Vicente, head of information for Latin America at GRAIN.
The Campesino Movement of Santiago del Estero (MOCASE), a grassroots movement made up of traditional farmers and indigenous groups, has taken more than 100 accusations of agrochemical poisoning to court in Santiago del Estero. The only other case of a judge ruling against the use of herbicides occurred in the northern province of Formosa. The judge, Silvia Amanda Sevilla, was subsequently fired. No other judge in the country has ruled in favor of prohibiting fumigation using glyphosate or other herbicides and pesticides. The courts have either thrown out or ruled against every single claim brought by the plaintiffs. Darío Aranda, a journalist with the national daily, Página/12, has reported on numerous communities in soy-producing regions throughout the country that have faced severe health problems, including residents in the provinces of Buenos Aires, Entre Rios, Chaco, Santa Fe, and Formosa.
Worse yet, research shows that the mostly rural communities that suffer the negative health effects of fumigations have not benefited from the soy explosion.
Much more at the link.Since Argentina's soybean boom in the late 90s, clinical studies have been conducted... more
Just before an international conference will decide on setting 'responsible soy standards, a new report is published by Corporate Europe Observatory exposing the reality of 'responsible' soy production in Paraguay. The Round Table on Responsible Soy (RTRS), an NGO-industry forum, will vote on a set of criteria for 'responsible' soy production on May 28 in the city Campinas, Brazil.
There is widespread international rejection of the RTRS process for certifying GM RoundupReady soy as 'responsible' while also legitimising soy expansion. The RTRS is dominated by industry members, including Monsanto, Cargill and Syngenta, while WWF and Solidaridad are the driving NGO members.
The report is illustrative of some of the widespread criticism on the RTRS, including the legitimisation of soy expansion. San Pedro is the new frontier of soy expansion in Paraguay, and this is where Grupo DAP - member of the RTRS - has established new soy farms on some 30.000 hectares. There is strong local resistance to indiscriminate spraying of agrochemicals, namely Roundup, on soy fields in San Pedro.
The report shows how the introduction of chemical weed control on smallholders' fields, promoted by Grupo DAP and other soy farmers, creates conflicts within the community and an increased pesticide use.
National regulations that get watered down, such as the new pesticide law in Paraguay pushed for by the soy industry lobby, cause equivalent weakening of RTRS standards since these are based to a large extent on compliance with national laws.
The report concludes that RTRS certification provides the participating industry with a greenwash, rather than real steps to address the problems caused by the international soy industry.
Shares of Monsanto Co. continued to slide early Thursday, then perked up a bit, after the company reported Wednesday that its fiscal 2009 earnings would be at the lower end of guidance because price cuts by Chinese competitors and cooler, wetter weather in the U.S. have led to lower sales of its Roundup glyphosate herbicide.
Monsanto shares were trading below $79 a share earlier Thursday morning, but later inched closer to Wednesday’s market close of $79.88 a share. Monsanto closed Tuesday at $84.78 a share.
“We believe that Monsanto shares will probably tread water,” Jeffrey Zekauskas, a J.P. Morgan analyst, wrote in a note to investors Thursday morning.
_________
LOL, oh yes, colder wetter weather is stopping use of Round Up as well as "competitors"... I think it is also more likely that more people are finally becoming wise to the POISON they are selling. Something to celebrate. Hopefully it will keep treading water and then drown. ANY company selling this poison needs to be held accountable for it. Profit sheets are a good way to do it. Keep it going.Shares of Monsanto Co. continued to slide early Thursday, then perked up a bit, after... more
Now Argentina has to decide what is more important: Money or people. What is the number of people who will develop cancer or have birth defects in their children that will be an "acceptable" number to them to offset the profits made? How much more blood money will Monsanto be able to suck out of Argentina, India, and other countries they prey upon with their lies?Now Argentina has to decide what is more important: Money or people. What is the... more
I just posted another study a couple of days ago regarding herbicides and their possible linkage to brain cancer in children. Now tell me, how is it that Monsanto PR reps have the absolute NERVE to come on these Internet sites and tell us that this poison is safe? Any company that claims they didn't want to lose one dollar of profit after toxifying an entire town with their PCBS, doesn't seem likely to give a damn about the poisons they sell now. Remember, the suffix "cide" refers to killing something.That obviously is not going to happen with a benign substance.
This also goes back to their seed patents, because farmers are required to purchase Round Up with the seeds because the seeds are supposedly "Round Up Ready." I have never seen such diabolical deceptive measures employed by a company to make proft over the safety and health of the environment and the people. But we will never see this information dessiminated by this media or the polticians who continue to support them.
I even saw a new ad from Monsanto the other night about Round Up CONCENTRATE, and they encourage people to spray it around their homes to kill weeds, but no warnings given. How absolutely evil. I say, if what they say about it being safer to drink a glass of glyphosate than milk is indeed true, let's see the CEO of Monsanto down a nice big tall one on one of those ads.I just posted another study a couple of days ago regarding herbicides and their... more
Never underestimate the power of a few committed people to change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has."
-- Anthropologist Margaret Mead
Even if you've heard the above quote many times before, the sentiment expressed is so powerful that I think it's worth repeating. All around the world, small groups of people are organizing public support for improved food safety and successfully challenging large corporations to change their behavior.
That's exactly what Flint Michigan residents Kathleen Kirby and Mark Fisher are banking on: their power to influence change. They're participating in a nationwide consumer boycott of Kellogg's Co. instigated by the Organic Consumers Association. By boycotting the world's largest cereal company, they hope to pressure Kellogg's into rejecting the use of sugar from genetically engineered (GE) sugar beets and to spark widespread market rejection in products ranging from cereal to baby food to candy.
As you may know, Roundup Ready sugar beets are genetically altered to resist Monsanto's toxic weed killer, Roundup, and its active ingredient, glyphosate. But here's the scary truth about these beets:
When the USDA first approved GE sugar beets for commercial planting in 1998, the EPA also increased the maximum allowable residues of glyphosate on sugar beet roots from just 0.2 parts per million to 10ppm. That's a staggering 5,000 percent increase of allowable toxins on beet roots. And, it's little surprise that EPA made this policy change at the request of Monsanto.
Sugar beet roots contain sucrose that's extracted, refined, and processed into the sugar used in the foods we eat. What this means is that the more GE ingredients that find their way into our food, the greater the likelihood that we are ingesting more toxic chemicals.
Thankfully, GE sugar beets have never been grown in the U.S. for sale to food manufacturers -- that is, until this year, when Western farmers planted their first crop of Monsanto's Roundup Ready sugar beets. Right now, over half of the sugar used in U.S. processed foods comes from sugar beets, with beet and cane sugars combined in those products. What's most disturbing is that once GE sugar beets hit the market, which could be as early as next year, there will be no way to know if we're eating GE sugar because GE ingredients are not labeled.
Currently, only four major GE crops are sold commercially -- corn, cotton, soy, and canola. Most of these are engineered to withstand repeated, large doses of herbicides. For the most part, these crops and their byproducts are largely fed to animals with the exception of some minor food ingredients and oils. GE beet sugar breaks with this tradition in that it could become the first major GE ingredient added to almost all processed foods on our grocery store shelves.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Our food supply is systematically being taken over and poisoned by Monsanto.There is no other way to state it now. If sugarbeets are allowed to continue to become a part of our food supply, then you can expect that EVERYTHING you touch will be genetically modified, and it has NOT been proven to be safe for human consumption or our environment. Please, I have been writing on this for months along with others who have been trying to make people understand how URGENT it is that you get involved in pushing state legislatures to require proper labelling of GM sources in foods. Read up on this at the Monsanto tag and take action.
Citizen activism is the only way to make companies like Monsanto back down. Consumers did it regarding POSILAC, and we can do it with this. Current TV is the only place I have been able to get exposure to this so far aside from my own blog, and it is also because of people here voting the information up so more can see it. So thank you to those who fight the good fight here everyday over those who would do anything in their power to keep this down. Never underestimate the power of a few committed people to change the world. Indeed,... more
