tagged w/ GMOS cannot feed the world
-
If Oregon allows GM sugar beets to be deregulated, we may not stand a chance against full federal deregulation of all GM crops.
(SALEM, Ore.) - A public hearing is being held in Corvallis, Oregon this Thursday, November 17th to determine if Genetically Modified sugar beets will be deregulated in Oregon.
Meanwhile, the public comment period maybe just a local distraction giving way to full federal deregulation without any representation of organic and conventional crop farmers.
Let us not forget that the U.S House of Representatives, Committee on Agriculture held a formal hearing on Genetically Modified (GM) Alfalfa on Jan 20, 2011.
The hearing corresponded with an open 30-day comment period, designed to provide relevant testimony with regard to deregulation of Genetically Modified Alfalfa.
The democratic process neglected to include a single organic or conventional farming representative. Throughout the two hour hearing various legislators publicly humiliated the Secretary of Agriculture, Tom Vilsak for even suggesting any compromise through talks with the organic and conventional communities. They all but ordered him to stand down his conversations with anyone but pro-GM enthusiasts (1:43:16).
Representatives left no seed unturned in honor of their allegiance to biotech crops and complete penetration into all foreign and domestic markets. In fact, Minnesota's Representative Collin Peterson referred to organic producers and consumers as "our opponents"[1](12:29).
Vilsak, even with his ties to Monsanto, was attempting negotiation with "so called Option 3" containing a minimal stop gap as an alternative to absolute contamination of organic and conventional alfalfa. In essence, planting barriers would have been implemented to maintain protective measures for the integrity of all seed varieties. Legislators blatantly mocked him and even pulled rank, saying that the Secretary of Agriculture does not have the authority to do anything but fully deregulate the crop without further ado. (35:38, 1:25:50, 1:29:15, 2:18:47)
It can be noted that Vilsak testified no less than three times that we were in the midst of the 30 day comment period, and in his opinion, the talks among all sides were providing necessary elements worthy of analysis for all agricultural markets concerned. (29:00, 1:44:00, 1:51:54)
The theme of the hearing centered around the economic burden of GM farmers if full deregulation didn’t go forth immediately (1:44:00). It was insisted by every representative that their loyalties were to the biotech community and that full deregulation was unquestionable without consideration for any form of barrier to protect other crops from cross contamination.
In regard to preservation of non GM crops, Texas Representative Michael Conaway begs the question, "how much of this is a definitional issue"? He questions organic standards and even insists that he "suspects that Genetically Engineered seeds will become the new organic". He blatantly suggests that legislative steps be considered to modify the language and thus re-define organic standards so that Genetically Modified crops can freely contaminate without restriction. He insists that it is merely a marketing issue and not an issue of health and safety. Conaway asks if we are just "hung up on the phrase organic, meaning something we grew ourselves in the backyard with whatever?"(2:33:00).
Concern was expressed by a number of speakers that GM crops are being promoted throughout the world as being no different than conventional crops, and if word got out that we established restrictive planting barriers, then it might be assumed that the GM crops were somehow different. That could put a damper on GM producers and their marketing potential. (30:45, 1:58:17, 2:18:47)
It was apparent, by the end of one sided discussion, that full deregulation and contamination remains unquestionable from the perspective of our democratic leaders. In other words, it is most notably a flagrant case of Contamination without Representation.
If Oregon allows GM sugar beets to be deregulated, we may not stand a chance against full federal deregulation of all GM crops. Public comments are being heard on Thursday from 4 PM – 9 PM at LaSells Stewart Center Construction and Engineering Hall 875 Southwest 26th St., Corvallis, Oregon.
Please see the full length video of the U.S House of Representatives, Committee on Agriculture forum on GM Alfalfa, Jan 20 2011.
http://agriculture.house.gov/hearings/hearingDetails.aspx?NewsID=1269If Oregon allows GM sugar beets to be deregulated, we may not stand a chance against... more
-
-
Sweden is heading for complete GMO FREE status: http://bit.ly/iCux08
Only the German chemical giant BASF and its GM potatoes stand in the way.
---
---
http://bit.ly/kNtVka
It's potato planting time again in the north of Sweden where activists are occupying BASF’s potato warehouse and are blocking the exit in order to hinder the German chemical company from planting the risky GMO potato "Amflora."
BASF clearly haven't learned from last year's contamination debacle, when, in the first planting season, it was discovered that the company had accidently contaminated the Amflora field with its own – non-approved – gm-potato "Amadea". The contamination scandal is the proof that once GE crops are released into the environment they cannot be controlled, even by the company that plants them.
Amflora was approved in the European Union to be used in food with a levels up to 0,9% and for feed use and seed cultivation. This approval of low levels in food allows for contamination of conventional potato crops by Amflora crops.
This GMO potato was approved without sufficient independent studies - no proper environmental risk assessment was conducted, toxicity for humans and animals was not assessed, and the implemented antibiotic resistance was simply ignored.
Greenpeace is demanding that BASF stop any further cultivation activities of Amflora, and for the European Commission to withdraw its approval of the GMO potato.
Greenpeace Austria, together with Justice and Environment and other NGOs, has already taken legal action against the approval of Amflora at the European Court of Justice. And not only NGOs are taking legal action, even member states, under the leadership of Hungary, are suing the European Commission for the approval of this risky potato.
Thank you! This work wouldn’t be possible without the million people that signed the petition calling for a moratorium on genetically modified (GM) crops. Read more about the delivery of the very first EU citizens initiative!
http://bit.ly/j7oXcYSweden is heading for complete GMO FREE status: http://bit.ly/iCux08
Only the German... more
-
-
On the day of the release of annual industry-sponsored figures, a new report from Friends of the Earth International reveals that the cultivation of genetically modified (GM) crops across Europe continues to decline – with an increasing number of national bans, and decreasing numbers of hectares dedicated to GMOs [1].
The report, 'Who Benefits from GM Crops?', reveals that less than 0.06% of European fields are planted with GM crops – a decline of 23% since 2008. Seven member states uphold bans on Monsanto's GM maize due to growing evidence of its negative environmental impacts. Three countries have banned BASFs GM potato due to health concerns, immediately after its authorisation in spring 2010, and for the first time five member states have sued the European Commission over the authorisation of a GM crop [2]. Public opposition to GM food and feed has increased to 61% Europe wide [3].
Mute Schimpf, food campaigner for Friends of the Earth Europe said: "The widespread opposition to genetically modified crops and foods in Europe continues to rise because consumers and farmers can see that they offer no added value and only additional environmental and health risks.
GM crops will hinder not help our challenge of ensuring we can feed our global population with safe and healthy food."
Globally, the research highlights how even pro-GM Governments in South America have been forced to take steps to mitigate the negative impacts of GMOs on famers, citizens and the environment.
The Brazilian Government has launched a GMO free soy programme to help farmers' access non-GMO soy seeds. In Argentina new research has exposed how the herbicide Glyphosate, used on the majority of GMOs grown worldwide, could have severe negative impacts on human health [4]. This has led to bans on spraying of the herbicide near people's homes. In Uruguay, local areas are declaring themselves GM-free.
Martin Drago, food sovereignty coordinator for Friends of the Earth International said: “Farmers and citizens in South America are bearing the burden of ten years of GM crops with widespread health disasters and rising costs. The myths on which the biotech industry is built are crumbling.
The havoc wreaked across South America shows that this technology is not fit for purpose. It is a wake up call for the rest of the world to move towards more ecological methods of farming.”
'Who Benefits from GM crops? An industry built on myths' also finds that:
- A new generation of GM crops designed to promote the use of hazardous pesticides Dicamba and 2,4 D are set for release in the US. Biotech companies are promoting these as a solution to the failure of existing GM crops to control weeds and reduce pesticide use.
- Biotech companies, aided by the US Government are now looking to new markets in Africa in an attempt to rescue their business. The Gates foundation, which funds billions of dollars worth of agriculture projects in Africa has bought shares in Monsanto, giving it a direct interest in maximising the profits of GM companies rather than protecting the interests of small holders in Africa.
NOTES:
[1] http://www.foeeurope.org/GMOs/download/who-benefits-from-gm-crops-2011.pdf
[2] http://www.foeeurope.org/GMOs/download/FoEE_Who_benefits_fact_sheet.pdfOn the day of the release of annual industry-sponsored figures, a new report from... more
-
-
EXTRACT: I asked a few of my colleagues who are listed as among the report's "400 authors and contributors" what happened. They all indicated that they had had no say in the actual writing of this report. As one scientist - whose name is listed in the report - put it:
"I was invited by email to write a review to be published elsewhere. I didn't participate in any meetings, discussions, findings, or report writing. I hadn't even been alerted to the fact that a report had been issued. It isn't at all clear to me how the listed "stakeholders" actually participated in the process. The issue of GM crops never came up in anything I saw, and it doesn't even seem to feature strongly in the report. [The] conclusion that Beddington is just using the report to promote GM crops seems about right."
That's how they treated eminent scientists. What about farmers, workers and Indigenous communities? They are simply and entirely absent from this report. ---
---
http://www.lavidalocavore.org/diary/4453/gmo-apologists-ignore-science-again
Britain's Chief Scientist has come out trumpeting the need for genetically engineered (GE) crops to feed the world, and the UK media is falling all over itself with blaring headlines that echo this badly misinformed sentiment (see Guardian, Telegraph coverage).
The source of all the hullabaloo is the UK's release this week of its mammoth Foresight report, Global Food and Farming Futures. Using the occasion to espouse what seems to be his personal opinion, Sir John Beddington - the Chief Scientist in question, argues that "It is very hard to see how it would be remotely sensible to justify not using new technologies such as GM. Just look at the problems that the world faces: water shortages and salination of existing water supplies, for example. GM crops should be able to deal with that." "Should?" Is that the best you can do, Sir John?
In reality, after 25 years of research, no drought or salt-tolerant crops have yet been commercially developed, while yield declines, surging herbicide use, resistant superweeds, and a host of environmental-not to mention social-harms have been documented where GE crops have been planted. In contrast, ecologically resilient agroecological farming systems are known to perform well under the stressed conditions increasingly associated with climate change and water scarcity. For a scientist, Beddington does a remarkable job of ignoring the science.
So much hype
In truth, the UK report does not ever claim, as the newspapers and Beddington have, that "genetically modified crops are the key to human survival." All it actually says is that "New technologies (such as the genetic modification of living organisms and the use of cloned livestock and nanotechnology) should not be excluded a priori on ethical or moral grounds." But that sort of talk just puts people to sleep; it certainly doesn't sell papers or keep industry happy.
The BBC at least has shown a bit more journalistic integrity, avoiding the GE hype and keeping to the report's main message, namely that "the food production system will need to be radically changed, not just to produce more food but to produce it sustainably." I couldn't agree more.
Unfortunately, despite the relevance of its main message, there's still much that is missing from the report, as Indian journalist and policy analyst Devinder Sharma and UK organizations GM Freeze and the Soil Association explain. When asked by BBC for his opinion of the report, the UN Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food, Olivier de Schutter, politely exposed the flaws in the report and concluded:
"We should realize that the insistence on producing more food is one that often has not benefited the small farmers, the poor in the rural areas in developing countries.... The problem with GM crops is that the patents on these crops are [held] by a very small handful of corporations, who will capture a larger proportion of the end dollar of the food that the consumer buys. [This] creates a dependency for small farmers that is very problematic in the long term. It may not be sustainable for small-scale farmers to be hooked up to such technologies.... Investing in small-scale farming rather than investing in large-scale heavily mechanized plantations is really the path we should now radically espouse."
Too bad the UK fell short of the mark this time. We usually expect greater vision from across the Atlantic.
cont.EXTRACT: I asked a few of my colleagues who are listed as among the report's... more
-
-
http;//theatlantic.com/food/archive/2010/12/a-visit-from-maines-organic-gardening-guru/68586
Yale's Timothy Dwight common room is packed. The room quiets down, and a couple hundred Ivy affiliates surrender their ears ... to a farmer.
The man, the farmer, the legend, is Eliot Coleman, educator, advocate of Four Seasons Farming (a year-round farming philosophy of his own creation), and author of several seminal books on organic farming. For nearly 40 years, Coleman has championed the organic farming cause, testing his methods on one and a half acres of the very successful Four Seasons Farm, on his property in Maine.
"Of course organic farming can feed the world," Coleman said. The audience was dumbstruck.Coleman began by explaining that it was his taste for adventure that got him into farming. In his mid-twenties, Coleman was hiking, trekking, and climbing mountains, hauling a 90-pound bag of gear, venturing into nature for three or four weeks at a time: "It was a heck of a lot harder than farming," he said. Coleman defines farming as a socially responsible adventure; the best adventure he has had so far, with the decades of dedication to the cause a hard-hitting testament to that fact.
In addition to farming and adventure, Coleman loves reading—a combination that birthed the success of his farming practice. Coleman briefed us on his story: he was a "kid from New Jersey" who started out at Williams College as a geology major, ending up with a master's in Spanish literature, with absolutely no background in agriculture. Apart from having a sense of adventure, and paying attention to the systems already present in nature (a skill that he learned while hiking and mountain-climbing), Coleman got started in agriculture by reading old gardening books from the 1800s, to learn how people grew crops before pesticides and fertilizer. "I'm a Jeffersonian farmer," Coleman said, "I read things." What he learned, apparently, is alarmingly simple: You just have to grow them correctly.
Coleman explained that he utilizes a system of crop rotations based on regular soil amendments, and he uses the presence of pests to gauge if he is growing correctly: "Pests are the best Professors of Agriculture," he said. He began to wax lyrical about nature, the force that is his second love (after his longtime wife, Barbara Damrosch, a renowned horticulturalist and author, who was seated in the front row).
"Nature is the most elegantly designed system," Coleman said, going on to propose his theory that nature's "flaws" are actually in man's understanding of nature, not in nature herself. I began to get a sense of the greater mythology that governs Coleman's practice. It seemed that if only we work with nature, instead of trying to control her, then we, too, could match the success of Coleman's approach. "This mountain doesn't have a top!" he exclaimed, reminding us that there is always more to learn.
Coleman segued to the heart of his story: He told us that he turned part of his 40 acres of rocky, woody land, with an initial soil pH of 4.3, in the harsh conditions of Maine, into a 1½ acre farm that yields $120,000 worth of produce a year. "Of course organic farming can feed the world," Coleman said. The audience was dumbstruck; it was almost as if Coleman was responding to that feeling in the room when he said, "The word 'impossible' scares people off of things that if they tried, they'd realize weren't so impossible."
cont.http;//theatlantic.com/food/archive/2010/12/a-visit-from-maines-organic-gardening-guru/... more
-
-
My final video for 2010 from the Sustainable Agriculture Group on GMO news. We need to see the momentum gaining more in 2011. Here's hoping that the coming year brings us one year closer to a GMO free world to protect the biodiversity and health of our food and planet.
Thank you to all who have supported my endeavors and posts this year.
JanMy final video for 2010 from the Sustainable Agriculture Group on GMO news. We need to... more
-
-
Today as thousands march in Cancun for climate justice, Seattle-based AGRA Watch and La Via Campesina North America are joined by 60 organizations and 40 academics and scientists from around the world who call on the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation to support real solutions to climate change, hunger and poverty.
In a letter to the Foundation, the signatories state their concern that the Foundation and its private sector partners are pushing to industrialize agriculture and commercialize genetically engineered crops in Africa at the expense of small farmers and the environment. Over one thousand individuals from more than 30 countries and 48 states in the US to date have also signed a separate online petition in support of the letter.
The letter to the Foundation condemns the industrial approach to agriculture and high-tech 'fixes' like genetic engineering because they undermine sustainable, resilient food systems that are controlled by local populations. Local systems actually mitigate climate change while the spread of industrial agriculture is one of the heaviest contributors to greenhouse gas emissions and loss of plant biodiversity worldwide, thus directly fueling the climate crisis.
AGRA Watch and La Via Campesina North America are sending the letter to the Gates Foundation as thousands of peasant farmers, rural women and men, indigenous peoples, and activists from all sectors of society mobilize in Cancun to reject corporate-driven, market-based solutions to climate change being promoted at the UN climate negotiations. "Both the UN climate negotiators and the Gates Foundation must recognize that false solutions such as GMOs and agrofuels that threaten our biodiversity will further Africa's exploitation, not salvation. We need to see real solutions to reduce climate emissions instead of more pressure on Africa," explained Anne Maina of the African Biodiversity Network, currently present at the talks.
Signatories of the letter and social movements in Cancun assert that real solutions to hunger and climate change are rooted in food sovereignty, the right of peoples and communities to define and control their own food and agriculture systems. La Via Campesina affirms that, "We need millions of peasant communities and indigenous territories to feed humanity and cool the planet" and "thousands of peoples' solutions." Echoing this statement, the sign-on letter calls on the Foundation to redefine its funding priorities in favor of small-scale agroecological agriculture, citing the findings of the 2008 International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development (IAASTD) report. The letter further advocates for an authentically participatory process that involves African farmers, farmer organizations, and civil society in decision-making from beginning to end, and urges the Foundation to restructure its grant-making to ensure transparency and accountability to farmers.Today as thousands march in Cancun for climate justice, Seattle-based AGRA Watch and... more
-
-
This is insidious. There is absolutely no need for GM rice in India. There are hundreds of natural varieties of rice in India. This is simply a move to once again place farmers in predicaments with expensive patented seed that will bring monoculture to India. This is the reality of globalization regarding food.This is insidious. There is absolutely no need for GM rice in India. There are... more
-
-
Appealing to the farmers and policy-makers to not emulate the Punjab model of Green Revolution, some farmers from Punjab said here on Sunday that the revolution had completely ruined the State. “Punjab is now called the cancer capital of India. The Green Revolution has given farmers only three things: debt, serious illnesses and polluted and scanty water sources,” said Balwinder Singh, a farmer, while talking to reporters during the Kisan Swaraj Yatra which reached Mumbai on Sunday.
“The Chief Minister now says that the government will fit RO [reverse osmosis water-filtering process] in every village. But what will happen to the cattle and other animals that drink from the contaminated water source? They are all going to end up in our stomachs. Jo barbaadi ki hai, wo wapas hamare paas ayegi hi ayegi [whatever we have ruined will come back to us],” he said.
Farmers and activists opposed the Eastern India Green Revolution project introduced by the Central government. “Even the Planning Commission has acknowledged the negative evidence in Punjab like high toxicity levels and reduced production. Why does the government still want to invest Rs. 400 crore in such a project?” asked Saroj Mohanty, a seed breeder, farmer and activist from Orissa.
Activists raised concerns about the skewed investment in agriculture, use of pesticides, genetically modified crops.
“After more than six decades of independence, 66 per cent of agricultural land in the country has no irrigation facility. The government doesn't invest in the breeding skills of the farmers. It doesn't encourage successful models of sustainable and high-yield agriculture,” said Kavitha Kuruganti, an activist of the Kheti Virasat Mission.
The activists said the government policy envisioned only 6-15 per cent of the country's population to depend on agriculture. “Where will the rest of the agriculture-dependent population go? Will we be able to create opportunities for them elsewhere?
“It seems like the government is purposely trying to make farming so unviable that people want to leave it or commit suicide,” said Aarti Pankharaj.
The activists said the absolute number of farmers who will be displaced will be in millions. “It will be the largest displacement. It is a civilisational debate now. Do we accept the larger development paradigm where farmers are being pushed out of rural agriculture?” Ms. Kuruganti said.
With reference to more than two lakh farmers' suicides in the country in the past 15 years, she said that there were also many farmers who had in fact successfully shown there was hope. “The community-managed sustainable agriculture project being run on 28 lakh acres in Andhra Pradesh is the best example in this case. This NPM [Non-Pesticidal Management of crops] is the world's largest State-supported project and is mainly run by women farmers. Their yields have improved tremendously. It is not true that organic farming brings down the yield.”
“Win-win” situation
She said the government should boost such role models and give them wide publicity so that more farmers move to the “win-win” situation. “Only the big corporates will face losses if this is done. We will be able to achieve food sustainability, non-toxic food supply and seed sovereignty,” she said.
cont.Appealing to the farmers and policy-makers to not emulate the Punjab model of Green... more
-
-
Billed as "a political thriller on GMOs and freedom of speech", this film by the German film-maker Bertram Verhaag tells the stories of two scientists, Dr Arpad Pusztai and Dr Ignacio Chapela, whose research showed negative findings on GM foods and crops. Both suffered the fate of those who challenge the powerful vested interests that dominate agribusiness and scientific research. They were vilified and intimidated, attempts were made to suppress and discredit their research, and their careers were derailed.
Pusztai found that the internal organs of rats fed GM insecticidal potatoes either increased in size or did not develop properly compared with controls. His experiments turned up no less than 36 significant differences between GM-fed and non-GM-fed animals. Pusztai, encouraged by his research institute, gave a 150-second interview on British TV in which he summarised his findings and said it was unfair to use our fellow citizens as guinea pigs for GM foods.
For two days, Pusztai was treated as a hero by his institute. But following a phone call from UK prime minister Tony Blair to the institute's head, Pusztai was fired and gagged under threat of a lawsuit. His research team was disbanded and his data were confiscated. Lies were circulated about his research that he could not counter due to the gagging order, lifted only later when he was due to appear before a Parliamentary Committee. For Pusztai’s co-researchers, the gagging order remains in place for life.
Pusztai's results threatened the GM industry because they showed that it wasn't the insecticide engineered into the potatoes that damaged the rats, but the genetic engineering process itself. So the problem wasn't just with these GM potatoes but potentially with all GM foods on the market. The only solution for the industry and its friends in government was to shoot the messenger.
Traumatic though this was for Pusztai, it wasn't the biggest shock he had to face regarding GM foods. That came when he was asked to review safety submissions from the GM industry for crops we were already eating – and found that they were scientifically flimsy. "That was a turning point in my life," said Pusztai. "I was doing safety studies; they were doing as little as possible [in terms of safety testing] to get their foods on the market as quickly as they could."
Another scientist whose run-in with the GM industry is featured in the film is Ignacio Chapela, a molecular geneticist at UC Berkeley. His research, co-authored with David Quist and published in the journal Nature, revealed that Mexican maize had been contaminated with GM genes. The finding was explosive because Mexico is the centre of origin for maize and the planting of GM maize there was illegal.
Chapela found himself the target of a vicious internet campaign condemning him as more of an activist than a scientist and claiming that his paper was false. Nature's editor published a partial retraction of the paper. As Chapela points out in the film, the editor's action flew in the face of scientific method. In the normal way of things, a journal editor publishes a study that he and peer reviewers judge to be sound. It is for subsequent published studies to confirm or correct the findings. It is not for the editor to state that he would not have published a study had he known then what he knows now – without the benefit of further peer reviewed scientific input. The editor's move showed how the GM industry is rewriting the rules of science for its own ends.
To add insult to injury, the internet campaign against Chapela turned out not to have been initiated and fuelled not by his scientific peers but by fake citizens, "sockpuppets" invented by the Bivings Group, a public relations firm contracted by Monsanto.
Scientists Under Attack goes on to show how the GM industry has blocked the evolution of scientific knowledge. When Russian scientist Irina Ermakova's study found high mortality rates and low body weight in rats fed GM soy, and when Austrian government research found that decreased fertility in mice fed GM maize, the industry carried out its usual campaign of vilification. If the industry were interested in scientific truth, it would push for studies to be repeated with the alleged "flaws" corrected. But this never happens. Instead, GM companies use their patent-based ownership of GM crops to deny scientists access to research materials – the GM crop and the non-GM parent line control. So the original research showing problems with GM crops is buried under a deluge of smears and follow up studies are not done. For the public, the difficulty and expense involved in accessing full research papers makes it hard to find where the truth lies.
The film also highlights an extreme example of the corporate takeover of science – at University of California, Berkeley (UCB), where Chapela is a professor. In 1998, UCB entered into a $25 million research partnership with biotech company Novartis (now Syngenta). The deal provoked angry debate on campus and was criticized by a number of faculty members, including Chapela. Then in 2007, UCB entered into a $500 million research deal with oil giant BP. The partnership was negotiated in secret, without consultation even within the university. In return for its money, BP gained access to UCB’s researchers, control over the research agenda, and co-ownership of commercial rights over inventions. Chapela says of BP, "They decide what is called science."Billed as "a political thriller on GMOs and freedom of speech", this film by... more
-
-
NOTE: The Gates Foundation is increasingly being forced to deal with criticism of its more dubious activities and programmes. With Via Campesina, the AGRA Watch campaign group (AGRA = The Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa, an initiative of the the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and its the biggest grantee) based, like the Gates Foundation, in Seattle, has initiated both a letter for sign on and an electronic petition to the Gates Foundation. Please sign on, and also circulate to other groups and individuals.
---
---
1. Help us reach 1000 signatures on our online petition to tell the Gates Foundation to support Real Solutions for Hunger!
Sign the petition at Change.org:
http://www.change.org/petitions/view/tell_the_gates_foundation_to_support_real_solutions_to_hunger
http://bit.ly/bw8eB3
2. Organizational Sign-on Letter, co-sponsored by AGRA Watch & La Via Campesina: See the text of the letter pasted below, and linked here; We welcome organizations and individual scientists or academics working in related fields to sign on by sending an email to agrawatch@seattleglobaljustice.orgThis e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it by the end of the Week of Action, this Sunday, 17 OCTOBER.
If you have any questions or concerns, please email us at agrawatch@seattleglobaljustice.orgThis e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it , or call 206-405-4600.
Thank you!
In solidarity,
AGRA Watch, a campaign of Community Alliance for Global Justice
*************
Petition: http://www.change.org/petitions/view/tell_the_gates_foundation_to_support_real_solutions_to_hunger
Sign-on letter: http://www.seattleglobaljustice.org/agra-watch/organizational-sign-on-letter/NOTE: The Gates Foundation is increasingly being forced to deal with criticism of its... more
-
-
In this monthly Monsanto Roundup courtesy of the Sustainable Agriculture Group on Current, we cover Bt cotton failure and pests, U.S. corporate shilling at Codex and strong arm tactical language against GMO critics at national biotech conference in Chicago, and a big stand planned against Monsanto by Haitian farmers for this Friday, World Environment Day. Plus some activism we can all do to stand up with Haitian farmers and farmers globally against this concerted attempt to take away our food sovereignty.
Monsanto out of our food!In this monthly Monsanto Roundup courtesy of the Sustainable Agriculture Group on... more
-
-
Be not troubled by Robert Paarlberg's scaremongering. Organic practices can feed the world -- better, in fact, than wasteful industrial farming.
In May 2004, Catherine Badgley, an evolutionary biology professor at the University of Michigan, took her students on a research trip to an organic farm near their campus. Standing on the acre-and-a-half farm, Badgley asked the farmer, Rob MacKercher, how much food he produces annually. "Twenty-seven tons," he said. Badgley did the quick math: That's enough to provide 150 families one pound of produce every single day of the year.
"If he can grow that quantity on this tiny parcel," Badgley wondered, "why can't organic agriculture feed the world?" That question was the genesis of a multi-year, multidisciplinary study to explore whether we could, indeed, feed the world with organic, sustainable methods of farming. The results? A resounding yes.
Unfortunately, you don't hear about this study, or others with similar findings, in "Attention Whole Foods Shoppers," Robert Paarlberg's defense of industrial agriculture in the new issue of Foreign Policy. Instead, organic agriculture, according to Paarlberg, is an "elite preoccupation," a "trendy cause" for "purist circles." Sure, sidling up to a Whole Foods in your Lexus SUV and spending $24.99 on artisan fromage may be the trappings of a privileged foodie, but there's an SUV-sized difference between obsessing about the texture of your goat cheese and arguing for a more sustainable food system. Despite Paarlberg's pronouncements, Badgley's research, along with much more evidence, helps us see that what's best for the planet and for people -- especially small-scale farmers who are the hungriest among us -- is a food system based on agroecological practices. What's more, Paarlberg's impressive-sounding statistics veil the true human and ecological cost we are paying with industrial agriculture.
Since most of us aren't well-versed in the minutia of this debate, we can't be blamed for falling for Paarlberg's scaremongering, which suggests that by rejecting biotech and industrial agriculture, we are keeping developing countries underdeveloped and undernourished. Paarlberg suggests that we could eliminate starvation across the continent of Africa were it not that "efforts to deliver such essentials have been undercut by deeply misguided ... advocacy against agricultural modernization."
It's a compelling argument, and one industry defenders make all the time. For who among us would want to think we're starving the poor by pushing for sustainability? (At a Biotechnology Industry Organization conference I attended in 2005, a workshop participant even suggested pro-organic advocates should be "tried for crimes against humanity.")
But the argument for industrial agriculture and biotechnology is built on a misleading depiction of what organic agriculture is, bolstered with shaky statistics, and constructed by ignoring the on-the-ground lessons of success stories across the globe.
continuedBe not troubled by Robert Paarlberg's scaremongering. Organic practices can feed... more
-
-
The U.S. State Department will aggressively confront critics of agricultural biotechnology as the United States seeks to mitigate the effects of climate change, Jose Fernandez, assistant secretary for the Bureau of Economic, Energy and Business Affairs, told several hundred attendees from around the world at the Biotechnology Industry Organization's annual convention last week in Chicago.
Nearly 15,000 stakeholders from the medical, agricultural and industrial sectors crowded the vast McCormick Place conference center, where it can be a half-mile walk between meeting rooms. Highlights of the May 3-6 meeting were keynote presentations by former Presidents Bill Clinton and George W. Bush, and former Vice President Al Gore. Lesser-known celebrities included New Yorker writer Michael Specter, author of the book Denialism: How Irrational Thinking Hinders Scientific Progress, Harms the Planet, and Threatens Our Lives (see also stories on Page 5).
Though he was not the first speaker at an opening afternoon "Leadership Summit," Fernandez warmed up the crowd when he said the State Department is ready to take on the naysayers. Agriculture has greater potential to mitigate climate change than either energy or transport measures, he said. "There are more people in the world, and the world is getting warmer. Our challenge is to produce more food with less."
Noting Turkey's recent ban on biotech food imports and India's rejection of biotech eggplant cultivation, Fernandez said the State Department is "working to overcome these obstacles." He outlined a four-pronged strategy to promote biotech crops worldwide: (1) highlighting the science; (2) confronting the critics; (3) building alliances; and (4) anticipating and addressing roadblocks to acceptance.
continued at the link if you have an account.The U.S. State Department will aggressively confront critics of agricultural... more
-
-
Today the Senate Foreign Relations committee held a hearing on the Global Food Security Act (S.384), which, as I have documented on this blog before, Monsanto HAS been involved in lobbying on. The bill first came to my attention about a year ago, when the same committee held a very similar hearing about the same bill. In the year since then, I've become increasingly knowledgeable and outraged about the issues surrounding global food security. In the meantime, the Obama Administration took the lead on the issue of global food security from the Senate, and USAID is doing quite a bit already (in partnership with the World Bank and private organizations and companies) to really f*ck things up worldwide.
One of the clauses in the bill specifies that the U.S. should promote biotechnology in its efforts to combat global hunger. After a year of lobbying to ask them to remove this, they still haven't. Lugar made a point today in saying how necessary he thought GMOs are. My very inadequate transcription of his remarks are as follows:
'The average African farmer's yield per acre is 1/2 that of an Indian farmer, 1/4 that of a Chinese farmer, and 1/5 of an American. [Something about Bill Gates' piece in the Wall Street Journal today] The role of GMOs in agriculture development is a matter of contention. Europe's rejection of GM has pressured African governments for fear they will lose export markets. Others argue safety is not proven despite 2 decades of safe use of GMOs. This ensures that much of the continent [Africa] will lack the tools to deal with changing climate in the long run. We may not be able to double food output by 2050. I ask to what extent does USAID support a full range of technologies? To what extent do the strategies encourage biotech?'
Here's the thing. The "double food output by 2050" figure is one that was created by idiots. Or just very greedy assholes. It assumes that the rest of the world will want to eat much more grain-fed meat (like Americans do now). Unfortunately, Mother Nature does not operate like a market with supply and demand. A diet of grain-fed meat means increased diet-related chronic illnesses for those who eat it. And it means continued and worsened environmental degradation and climate change for the planet. Our species existence on this planet is contingent on us NOT increasing grain-fed meat consumption (and in fact, on DECREASING it). Therefore, the Senate, USAID, and Bill Gates are all aiming for a false goal.
Rajiv Shah (head of USAID) answered as follows (again, this is a very poor transcription):
'USAID has had a longstanding relationship with CG research activities [the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research, a major institution of the Green Revolution] - linking them to local agricultural systems. We've invested in land grant universities through collaborative research systems. The two things we are looking to evolve - we've identified a set of core crops and core production constraints like rice, maize, and cassava and drought tolerant and heat tolerant traits. We are working with partners around the world to do this. We are looking to partner with USDA and the unique capabilities they bring. We've specifically support transgenic technologies including GE eggplant in India and we are supporting building the regulatory systems in other countries and then we'll let farmers decide what they want.'
Shah is an asshat. I really don't have a nicer word for him or a more apt description. He came originally from the Gates Foundation (which employs a former Monsanto VP and is now working with CGIAR and actively promoting GM crops and industrial agriculture) to the USDA and then to USAID. By all accounts he's very smart, but he's 100% on board with this "new Green Revolution" extend industrial ag including biotech to the developing world plan (despite massive amounts of science that says it's a bad idea).
The number one outrage for me from this hearing was when Shah said that it was appropriate to be speaking about this on Earth Day and then referred to US promotion of biotech as "sustainable." He said we are working on two fronts - to make agriculture produce more and to make it more sustainable. Except, from what I heard, it seemed that his idea of sustainable was GM "drought tolerant" seeds.
Next came Jacob Lew, Deputy Secretary of State for Management and Resources. He said (roughly):
'The regulatory environment is very important. If you don't fill the space with science and knowledge and facts, then fear can fill the space just as easily. To deal with the problems of the future, we can't afford to let it drift for decades. It must be addressed as the technologies are developed.'
In other words, if USAID and its partners are not active in promoting biotech, then people around the world might discover some of the risks or problems with biotech and reject it. He wants to use biotech now, not wait for years or decades until technologies are proven safe (or perfected so that they are safe) before using them.
Next, Lugar and the two witnesses (Shah and Lew) had an exchange about a "country-led" effort to solve problems of food insecurity. They don't want to be paternalistic, and yet they don't want to give up control over the uses of their money in the countries where they spend it. Essentially it sounds like the US will lay out what they are interested in doing (i.e. biotech) and if other countries are interested in playing ball, they can. If they don't, then they don't get any money from us or the World Bank.
snip
This turned into a dialogue about women. Research shows that some 70% of smallholder farmers in the developing world are women, and a disproportionate percent of the hungry are women and girls. Also, when you give $1 of additional income to a woman, it is more likely to go toward the health and well-being of the family than if you give that $1 to a man. I'm very pleased that the U.S. government is recognizing this and taking action on it.
Unfortunately, there's a negative side to this too. I believe it was Rajiv Shah who mentioned during the hearing that it is easier to convince women to buy GM seeds and grow GMOs because you can make a case for increased nutrition from GMOs. They are also more likely to purchase ammonia fertilizer (which kills the life in the soil and pollute waterways). Thus, women are more likely than men to respond to arguments the US makes telling them to adopt GMOs and industrial ag.Today the Senate Foreign Relations committee held a hearing on the Global Food... more
-
-
Despite fundamental differences in what they represent, there are occasional calls to allow the use of genetic engineering (which produces genetically modified organisms, known as GMOs) within the USDA National Organic Program. GMO varieties are currently most widespread in corn, soybean, canola and cotton crops, in dairy production, and in minor ingredients, such as dairy cultures, used in food processing, but new products are being introduced and commercialized.
Here are 10 essential points that I believe show why GMOs are incompatible with organic production:
1. Basic science. Humans have a complex digestive system, populated with flora, fauna, and enzymes that have evolved over millennia to recognize and break down foods found in nature to make nutrients available to feed the human body. GMO crops and foods are comprised of novel genetic constructs which have never before been part of the human diet and may not be recognized by the intestinal system as digestible food, leading to the possible relationship between genetic engineering and a dramatic increase in food allergies, obesity, diabetes, and other food-related diseases, which have all dramatically increased correlated to the introduction of GMO crops and foods.
2. Ecological impact. Organic agriculture is based on the fundamental principle of building and maintaining healthy soil, aquatic, and terrestrial ecosystems. Since the introduction of GMOs, there has been a dramatic decline in the populations of Monarch butterflies, black swallowtails, lacewings, and caddisflies, and there may be a relationship between genetic engineering and colony collapse in honeybees. GMO crops, including toxic Bt corn residues, have been shown to persist in soils and negatively impact soil ecosystems. Genetically modified rBST (recombinant bovine somatrotropin, injected to enhance a cow’s milk output) has documented negative impacts on the health and well being of dairy cattle, which is a direct contradiction to organic livestock requirements.
3. Control vs harmony. Organic agriculture is based on the establishment of a harmonious relationship with the agricultural ecosystem by farming in harmony with nature. Genetic engineering is based on the exact opposite -- an attempt to control nature at its most intimate level - the genetic code, creating organisms that have never previously existed in nature.
4. Unpredictable consequences. Organic ag is based on a precautionary approach - know the ecological and human health consequences, as best possible, before allowing the use of a practice or input in organic production. Since introduction, genetic modification of agricultural crops has been shown to have numerous unpredicted consequences, at the macro level, and at the genetic level. Altered genetic sequences have now been shown to be unstable, producing unpredicted and unknown outcomes.
continuedDespite fundamental differences in what they represent, there are occasional calls to... more
-
-
Nombulelo Siqwana-Ndulo (PhD)
FoodFirst, April 15 2010
http://www.foodfirst.org/en/node/2884
Multinational seed and chemical companies looking to gain a new customer base in Africa are facing increasing resistance from both farmers and consumers. Nonetheless, they are making inroads by partnering with African institutions and governments that are eager to ‘modernize' their agricultural sectors. South Africa is of particular importance in this regard. The country has gone against the grain of general distrust of GMOs in Africa to become a gateway for the distribution of GM food aid; the commercialization and export of GM seeds; and experimentation with GM crops not approved elsewhere.[i]
But here too, they face mounting opposition. In July 2009, for instance, the South African government rejected the commercial release application for GM potatoes after the Executive Council, a government licensing body, concluded that the toxicology studies were "inadequate, scientifically poorly designed and fundamentally flawed." It was also reported that, in 2008/2009, 80% of Monsanto's GM maize in South Africa failed to produce a crop, leading critics to call for urgent investigation and a ban on all GM foods.
In 2002, the South African government, in partnership with U.S.-based biotech firm Monsanto, launched the so-called Massive Food Production Program (MFPP) in the country's Eastern Cape Province. The Eastern Cape is characterized by a dual economy in which the western half of the province (previously white South Africa under apartheid) is dominated by commercial agriculture while the eastern half consists of subsistence agriculture. After the advent of democracy in 1994, there was tremendous pressure to develop the rural economy here.
MFPP is a "flagship program" of the South African government designed to bring about agrarian transformation through a "green revolution."[ii]The program operates by granting subsidies (which are phased out over time) and credit to small farming communities to purchase fertilizers, pesticides and GM or hybrid seeds. Through MFPP, Monsanto has essentially been elevated to the status of a government "extension agency" responsible for educating and training farmers about GM seeds and technologies. Of course, as a private company, they are unlikely to share with farmers the potentially disastrous effects of planting their land with GM crops. Rather, they advise farmers to buy and use the recommended agrochemicals. They also instruct them to plant only GM maize, as a monoculture, instead of intercropping with beans or pumpkins as they have done for centuries to ensure their food security.
A white farmer interviewed by GRAIN, paid to mentor an MFPP community, acknowledged that the cost of the inputs was just too high for small farmers to afford on their own,without continuing to amass debt. He was quoted saying he was "tempted to tell farmers to just buy food with the money" as their losses would be less than growing the food themselves through MFPP.
South African farmers are becoming increasingly aware of the deception that GM seeds and technologies will bring development and pull them out of poverty, as their experiences have not born out these claims. In populations with low literacy levels, the farmers are given little or no information about the effects of planting GM seeds, until it is too late, that is. It is not surprising that western consumers who are largely literate and have access to information are wary of GM foods.
Tragically, even the government officials in charge of co-implementing the MFPP program are ignorant of GMOs. A number NGOs and Human Rights organization have taken on the responsibility of educating the farmers about the effects of planting GMOs.
The constitution of South Africa, hailed as one of the most progressive in the world, obligates the government to take steps to protect its citizens. As part of the Consumer Protection Act, the government is indeed drafting policies to regulate GMOs, but many NGOs say it is unclear who will implement and monitor these regulations.
What's more, the South African NGO Safeage reports that the U.S. seed company Pannar and the Swiss firm Syngenta are partnering with local businesses to introduce a program of their own called AfriCan, targeting the poor farmers inthe Eastern Cape who have yet to be reached. The project incorporates farmers into a contract-farming scheme linking them to credit, GM seeds and chemical inputs-much like MFPP. The pilot project, which hopes to be reproduced throughout Africa, was launched in March 2010 with 500 farmers (with .5 to 4 hectare plots) and will run for 18 months.[iii]
Despite claims that there have been no substantiated threats to human and animal health caused by GM crops, subsistence farmers who participated in the MFPP project testified to the contrary in a workshop held by the NGO Biowatch (SA). A farmer from the organization Siyazakha expressed her dismay of the quality of "mielies" (maize), a staple food, produced with"free" seeds from the project. She stated, "the mielies produced are making us sick; they break easily and are bad quality. When we give it to our chickens it affects them, we want to grow our own seed and protect them". Another small-scale farmer from Siyazakha, pointed out that using fertilizers destroys the soil after just a few years and food can no longer be grown on it. He stressed that they want use manure and produce crops using traditional farming methods.[iv]
cont.Nombulelo Siqwana-Ndulo (PhD)
FoodFirst, April 15 2010... more
-
-
The Boston Globe just printed a whopper: "Genetically engineered crops are more environmentally friendly than organic ones." This is the same lie we've been hearing from a long time, and it's coming from more or less the same source. In this case, the source is Elliot Entis, a former board member of the Biotechnology Industry Organization (BIO) - the biotech industry lobby group.
I know what this article says without reading it: organic yields less than conventional, GMO ag and therefore organic is worse for the earth. People who oppose GMOs and love organics are idealists who don't know the first thing about growing food. We need GMOs to feed the earth. And that is exactly what the article DOES say. None of it becomes any less of a lie just because the Boston Globe was hoodwinked into printing it. Honestly, this is outrageous and newspapers should be held to a higher standard. We expect them to give us the hard facts, not dumb lies.
If you want to express your outrage on this, please write the Boston Globe a letter to the editor within the next week. Use the following points:
1. The Rodale Institute's Farm Systems Trials show that organic yields as much or MORE than conventional, GMO ag for corn and soy.
2. For all crops, organic yields a little more than 90% as much as conventional in the U.S. but produces 80% MORE than conventional in the developing world.
3. Therefore, the entire argument made in the article is blown to bits because it was entirely based on that premise.
4. The Union of Concerned Scientists found that GMOs resulted in a net INCREASE of pesticide use overall. Also, the numbers given for Bt crops that boast a decrease of pesticides do not account for the pesticide produced by the plants themselves.
5. Bt is not as benign when produced by GM crops as it is when sprayed on by organic farmers. That is because when it is sprayed on as needed, it then breaks down in the environment quickly. When it is produced by every cell of every plant, it is always present. Thus, it puts us at risk of losing Bt as an effective organic management tool for pests because it will promote the evolution of Bt-resistant pests.
To submit a letter to the editor
e-mail letter@globe.com or use our form.
Letters may be sent by regular mail to this address:
Letters to the Editor
The Boston Globe
P.O. Box 55819
Boston, MA 02205-5819
Or by fax to (617) 929-2098
Please include your full name, address, and a telephone number for confirmation purposes. Letters should be 200 words or less and are subject to condensation.The Boston Globe just printed a whopper: "Genetically engineered crops are more... more
-
-
Monsanto shares rallied to a record in November 2007 when executives declared the company would double gross profit in five years.
As recently as January, CEO Hugh Grant and other senior managers insisted they were on track to meet the goal. After all, Monsanto’s queue was stocked with promising new seed technologies to help meet a growing demand for food.
But on Wednesday, Grant retreated, saying the company won’t meet its 2012 target of gross profit, which is a company’s sales less the cost of the goods and services sold.
“Moving away from our original set of goals is difficult for us to accept, but it’s the right thing to acknowledge now,” he said in a conference call with analysts and investors.
The announcement caps a turbulent past year for Monsanto. The Creve Coeur-based company is the subject of a federal antitrust investigation. It was forced to shed hundreds of jobs and slash prices for its best-selling weed killer because of a glut of generic product from China. And it isn’t selling as much of its new biotech corn and soybean seed as expected because some growers have balked at the higher price.
However painful to do, backing off its 2012 profit pledge was the right choice in the long run, analysts said.
“We don’t like it when we see companies do unwise things to meet a near-term goal at the expense of long-term growth,” said Dan Ortwerth, an analyst at Edward Jones.
Monsanto’s lower outlook came as the company reported on Wednesday a 19-percent drop in fiscal second-quarter earnings.
Monsanto’s net income — gross profit less all other costs — fell to $887 million, or $1.60, for the quarter ended Feb. 28, versus $1.09 billion, or $1.97, in the same three months a year ago. Sales fell 3.6 percent to $3.89 billion.
Excluding costs related to a corporate restructuring last year, Monsanto’s earnings matched the $1.70-a-share average estimate of analysts surveyed by Bloomberg.
RELATED LINKS
Get more business news, blogs and opinion
Monsanto said full-year profit would be at the low end of the previously announced range of $3.10 to $3.30 a share. The company forecast earnings growth of 13 percent to 17 percent a year beginning in 2011 — a much slower rate than investors had been accustomed to.
The company’s stock slid 2 percent on Wednesday to $68.09 on the New York Stock Exchange. That’s less than half its all-time high of $142.69 set in June 2008. So far this year, the stock has fallen 17 percent.
The biggest drag on Monsanto’s profitability since then has been the decline in its Roundup business.
On Wednesday, Monsanto further cut gross profit projections for its Roundup business to $600 million, from $650 million to $750 million. Only a year ago, the same segment generated $1.8 billion in gross profit.
The reason for the steep drop in Roundup profit: a flood of Chinese-made generic weed killer saturating the U.S. market that forced Monsanto to slash prices.
Just a week ago, the nation’s only other glyphosate manufacturer, Ankeny, Iowa-based Albaugh Inc., filed an anti-dumping petition with the U.S. government.
Monsanto faces competitive pressure in the seed business too.
As a result, the company indicated that it would retool its product strategy, a move that will include some price cuts, to drive higher adoption rates for new products.
Monsanto said earlier this year that its new SmartStax corn and Roundup Ready 2 Yield soybeans would be planted on fewer acres than previously forecast.
cont.Monsanto shares rallied to a record in November 2007 when executives declared the... more
-
-
The European Commission has just approved growing
genetically modified crops for the first time in 12 years,
putting the GM lobby's profits over public concerns - 60% of
Europeans feel we need more information before growing foods
that could threaten our health and environment.
A new initiative allows 1 million EU citizens a unique
chance to make official requests of the European Commission.
Let's build a million voices for a ban on GM foods until the
research is done. Sign the petition below and spread the
word.
Don't forget to include your address so that all of our
signatures count for the citizens' initiative.
http://www.avaaz.org/en/eu_health_and_biodiversity/98.php
To the President of the European Commission José Manuel
Barroso: We call on you to put a moratorium on the
introduction of GM crops into Europe and set up an
independent, ethical, scientific body to research the impact
of GM crops and determine regulation.
Read the rest of this report here
http://www.i-sis.org.uk/banningGMOsInEuropePetition.php
Or read other articles about GM crops here
http://www.i-sis.org.uk/GE-agriculture.php
========================================================
This article can be found on the I-SIS website at
http://www.i-sis.org.uk/banningGMOsInEuropePetition.phpThe European Commission has just approved growing
genetically modified crops for the... more
-
