-
-
Prince of Wales resumes GM crops debate
The Prince of Wales has resumed his battle against GM crops, claiming that the technology has partly contributed to the number of small farmers in India committing suicide.
In a speech to the Indian environmental pressure group Navdanya, the Prince pushed for a return to more traditional methods of farming.
It is less than two months since he provoked a heated debate about GM with an interview with The Daily Telegraph in which he said GM crops risked causing the world's worst environmental disaster.
He was criticised for being a "Luddite", talking "biased baloney" and abusing his position.
But in his latest speech, delivered by video-link, he said he intended to continue speaking out about the controversial subject.
"The reason I keep sticking my 60-year-old head above an increasingly dangerous parapet is not because it is good for my health," he said.
"But precisely because I believe fundamentally that unless we work with nature in a myriad of ways such as this we will fail to restore the equilibrium we need in order to survive on this planet."
He highlighted the sensitive issue of small farmers who have killed themselves in India after getting into debt.
Although the suicides took place before the introduction of GM crops, some anti-GM campaigners believe farmers were pushed into buying the more expensive modified crop, which then failed to produce a significant yield.
This is contested by the agricultural biotech companies and the link is still unclear.
But the Prince referred to "the truly appalling and tragic rate of small farmer suicides in India stemming in part from the failure of many GM crop varieties".
He went on: "The debate really is very simple. Do you think we can solve (the food crisis) by using traditional agricultural practices enhanced by research to increase yields, but within a truly sustainable framework?
"Or do you think that is impossible and that instead it is worth taking all the risks that I would argue are associated with GM technology? To me, the answer is pretty straightforward.
"I want to see trust being put back in individual farmers, with their knowledge of the land and their skills honed over generations."
Pete Riley, from GM Freeze, an anti-GM campaign group, supported the Prince and said: "I think the Prince is right to raise concerns. This is a significant issue in the southern part of the world." The Prince of Wales has resumed his battle against GM crops, claiming that the technology has partly contributed to the number of smal... more -
Genetically modified crops' days may be numbered
Pressure from the president of the European Commission has not succeeded in advancing the cause of transgenic crops. In spite of the power wielded by the executive organ of the European Union, the bloc's member countries are gradually discontinuing the use of genetically modified seeds.
This is due in large measure to the difficulty of convincing European farmers to adopt the transgenic crop production model, which is being promoted by biotech giants, but also to increasingly vociferous protests from civil society, which is demanding that governments take an active role, according to an expert interviewed by IPS.
Genetically modified (GM) organisms, also called transgenics, are made in laboratories by inserting genes from other species of plants or animals into their original DNA, in order to improve their properties or confer resistance to external factors like pests or insecticides. Vectors, often viruses or bacteria, are used to insert the foreign genes.
In Spain and Portugal, which have the largest areas in the EU devoted to GM maize cultivation, people are beginning to question the benefits of sowing and harvesting transgenic varieties of maize, a crop native to the Americas which was the staple food of a number of indigenous cultures.
Maize was slow to be introduced in Europe, because the Central American areas where it was grown were colonised by the Spanish at the time when the Roman Catholic Church was conducting the Inquisition, and they believed that Europeans should not eat the same food as indigenous peoples because, in their view, the latter were not "children of God."
Widely used now as feed for animals, maize has been the subject of fierce controversy within the European Commission.
On the one hand, Commission President Jos; Manuel Duro Barroso is in favour of significantly increasing the production of GM maize within the EU. On the other, European Commissioner for the Environment, Stavros Dimas, is dead set against it.
The European Commission works like a cabinet government and is made up of 27 Commissioners, one from each EU member state, although they must represent the interests of the EU as a whole, not just their home country.
In October 2007, Dimas opposed European Commission approval for cultivation in the EU of two GM varieties of maize, Bt-11 and 1507, because "possible long-term risks to the environment and biodiversity are not completely known, and environmental effects resulting from the cultivation of the GM maize lines are unacceptable."
"However, the majority of the Commissioners are in favour of GM maize, and the final decision has been postponed twice because a consensus could not be reached," Portuguese biologist Margarida Silva, the national coordinator of Plataforma Transgnicos Fora, comprising 12 Portuguese non-governmental organisations working on agriculture and the environment and networking with likeminded NGOs in the EU, told IPS.
Duro Barroso tried to convince Dimas to withdraw his objections in April, while simultaneously requesting an assessment by the European Food Safety Authority, "with the purpose of undermining the legitimacy of Dimas' stance," according to Silva, who is also a university professor.
Silva said that "the movement against transgenics is growing in civil society throughout Europe, and GM crops have already been banned in several countries."
snip
A huge, unified movement of people in favour of declaring a moratorium on the cultivation of GM crops has emerged in Spain and Portugal, following a similar decision taken in March by the French government that invoked the "safeguard clause" allowing an EU member state to bypass a community directive.
Silva said France based its decision "on a set of 25 scientific studies indicating risks to the environment, farming and human health derived from the cultivation of GM maize."
_______________
Photo credit:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/tony_penfold/2657046712/ Pressure from the president of the European Commission has not succeeded in advancing the cause of transgenic crops. In spite of the p... more -
Genetically modified seeds pose more problems than natural varieties
The processes of hybridization involving repeated combinations of genetic material were limited for a long time by the fact that natural reproduction only takes place between plants of the same species. But Genetic Engineering took off with the unravelling of the full structure of the DNA 20 years ago. It became possible to insert a gene of one species into the DNA of another, thus offering immense agricultural possibilities.
Some examples include the modification of plants that fix the nitrogen of the air without belonging to the Leguminous family, plants resistant to certain diseases or to dry environments; the possibility of producing drugs and vaccines by genetically modifying bacteria, and many others.
Farmers were thus promised higher incomes; traders were promised lower costs of production and better quality of produce; and the companies producing such foods saw huge profits appearing on the horizon through monopolies and patents of such modified foods. Naturally, their research showed that there was no difference between the natural and engineered foods, that these were safe, and that they would solve the problem of famine in the world.
But if GM foods were all that their producers claimed them to be, why was the process conducted by stealth and sprung on the public without notice? This policy of the fait accompli began with the US government, which neither informed nor consulted its citizens about GM crops nor, worse still, did it require GM foods to be labelled, so as to give the public the democratic choice of whether to buy or not. After this GM foods were imposed on one country after another, in the same utterly undemocratic atmosphere of secrecy.
For a full understanding of the import of GM foods, two sets of results need to be considered: social results on the countries that have adopted them and biological results of the genetically modified foods. Further, GM foods must be analysed as part and parcel of the much touted globalization,to which we now turn.
Dr Vandana Shiva is an India physicist, founder and president of the Research Foundation for Science Technology and Ecology, and one of India's leading activists. She describes in one of her papers how the transformation of peasant agriculture in India to a globally industrialized model, which has GM foods as a supporting pillar, has reduced food security, threatened local businesses and biodiversity, driven farmers off their lands, and opened the door for global corporations to take over the nation's food processing.
The common claim by globalization enthusiasts is that it is natural, inevitable, and evolutionary. Dr Shiva sees it otherwise. Globalization is not a natural process of inclusion. It is a planned project of exclusion that has siphoned the resources and knowledge of the poor of India onto the global marketplace, stripping people of their life-support systems, livelihoods, and lifestyles.
Global trade rules, as enshrined in the World Trade Organization (WTO) Agreement on Agriculture (AOA) and in the Trade Related Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPs) agreement, are primarily camouflaged rules of robbery.
The WTO's overall goal: promoting market competition serves two purposes. First, it transforms culture, biodiversity, food, water, livelihoods, needs, and rights into commodities for sale to be conveyed to markets. Second, it justifies the destruction of nature, culture, and livelihoods in terms of rules of competition.
Its officials attack ethical and ecological rules that sustain and promote life, dubbing them as protectionist barriers to trade.
Globalized food and agriculture in effect, means the corporate takeover of the food chain, the erosion of food rights, the destruction of the cultural diversity of food and the biological diversity of crops, and the displacement of millions from land-based, rural livelihoods. The processes of hybridization involving repeated combinations of genetic material were limited for a long time by the fact that natur... more -
California legislature passes bill protecting farmers against Monsanto lawsuits
NOTE: More good news from the US. This is a major step forward. California's is the 8th largest economy in the world.
EXTRACT: Currently, farmers with crops that become contaminated by patented seeds or pollen have been the target of harassing lawsuits brought by biotech patent holders, particularly Monsanto. --- --- California Legislature Passes Bill Protecting Farmers Against Monsanto Lawsuits
First State Bill Regarding Genetically Engineered Crops Awaits Governor's Signature
PRESS RELEASE, The Genetic Engineering Policy Project
August 31 2008 - A landmark piece of legislation protecting California's farmers from crippling lawsuits was passed through both legislative houses this week in an end-of-session flurry. The Senate voted 23 - 14 to support it, and the Assembly was unanimous in their support. The bill, AB 541 (Huffman, D-Marin/Sonoma), is now headed to the Governor's desk for his signature. Sponsored by diverse organizations, some of whom are traditionally opposed on farm issues, AB 541 is the first bill passed by the California legislature that brings much-needed regulation to genetically engineered (GE) crops.
"I am very pleased that my office, working with the stakeholders on both sides of this historically divisive issue, was able to find common ground and pass California's first legislation on genetic engineered crops," stated Assemblymember Huffman. "While there is still work to be done on other aspects of genetic engineering, AB 541 is an important step in establishing basic protections for California's farmers."
AB 541 enacts protections against lawsuits brought against California farmers who have not been able to prevent the inevitable - the drift of GE pollen or seed onto their land and the subsequent contamination of their non-GE crops. Currently, farmers with crops that become contaminated by patented seeds or pollen have been the target of harassing lawsuits brought by biotech patent holders, particularly Monsanto. The bill also establishes a mandatory crop sampling protocol to prevent biotech companies that are investigating alleged violations from sampling crops without the explicit permission of farmers.
AB 541 has the support of organizations traditionally on opposite sides of the GE issue, and its sponsors are confident that the Governor will sign it. The bill was sponsored by a thirteen-member coalition including Community Alliance with Family Farmers, Earthbound Farm, California Certified Organic Farmers, United Natural Foods Inc., as well as California Farmers Union and the California Farm Bureau, and several others.
"AB 541 is a move in the right direction," stated Renata Brillinger, director of the Genetic Engineering Policy Project, the coalition of organic and conventional farmers, food industry, environmental, and faith organizations sponsoring AB 541. "It provides much needed protection for farmers who typically lack the resources to fight lawsuits brought by biotech conglomerates."
A copy of the bill can be downloaded at:
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
This is GOOD news! I hope other states use California as a model and work on bills that also give protection to farmers sued by Monsanto out of greed. Transgenic pollution and pollination is not the fault of the farmer, and Monsanto should not be allowed to indiscriminately sue farmers trying to make a living simply because they don't plant their frankenfood. NOTE: More good news from the US. This is a major step forward. California's is the 8th largest economy in the world. ... more -
Research reveals higher than expected amounts of pesticides in beehives
While pesticides have consistently been acknowledged as a contributing factor within this problematic milieu, recent research at Penn State has revealed that pesticide levels in hives are much higher than researchers predicted. Beekeepers use some pesticides as an inexpensive way to combat varroa mites in their colonies. While the researchers were able to reduce the pesticide levels in beeswax foundation -- the wax that beekeepers use to create hive structures -- through irradiation, this only addresses part of the problem. The extraordinarily high levels of pesticides discovered in the bees, their honey, and their pollen, showed that pesticide exposure outside of the hives is contributing to the problem.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency regulates agricultural pesticide use, but this regulation does not account for the interaction of these chemicals that inevitably takes place through the bees' pollination processes. Some of these combinations of pesticides have been found to have a synergistic effect hundreds of times more toxic than any of the pesticides individually, says James L. Frazier, professor of entomology at Penn State. Bees' exposure to these toxic chemical combinations both outside of, and within, the home -- er, hive -- may cause behavioral changes. These changes include immune system blocks and disorientation, which may help to explain the CCD crisis of late.
Last year, the American Beekeepers' Federation, in a letter to the Chairman of the House Committee on Agriculture, encouraged Congress to pass the 2007 Farm Bill. The letter highlighted environmental regulation and enforcement as one of the beekeeping industry's priority issues, stating "the central role of bees in the environment and farm economy should be emphasized in environmental regulation and enforcement, including in the review and approval of new farm chemicals and treatments.... In the Farm Bill or otherwise, Congress should, among other things, mandate that sub-lethal effects on honey bees be considered in the regulatory process for new agricultural treatments."
Whether Congress follows through or not, organic farming and agricultural practices provide an approach to addressing the problem of pesticide toxicity in bees. The Institute of Science in Society stated in a recent press release that "organic farming practices that retain more natural habitats and avoid the use of chemical pesticides should provide environments that serve as honeybee sanctuaries from the ravages of CCD. There are scientific studies showing that agricultural landscapes with organic crops are far superior environments for both honey- and bumblebees. It would be prudent to create organic bee sanctuaries as widely and as soon as possible... There is every reason to eliminate the use of all pesticides that act synergistically with parasitic fungi, and all Bt crops should be banned for the same reason. Obviously, these problems will disappear with the widespread adoption of organic, non-GM farming."
******************
Could it be that Monsanto's Round Up pesticide or some other pesticide made by Bayer is contributing to colony collapse disorder? The NRDC recently filed suit against the EPA to disclose information they have regarding CCD and pesticides as they refused to answer questions about it. I think this research is instrumental in then shedding some light on whether CCD is related to the pesticides bees come in contact with on GM crops when trying to pollenate them, or some other toxic source. While pesticides have consistently been acknowledged as a contributing factor within this problematic milieu, recent research at Penn ... more -
Film review: The World According To Monsanto
The most important documentary you will see this year.
How much outrage can a single multinational corporation inspire? How much damage can they inflict? The breathtaking new film, The World According to Monsanto, features a company that sets the new standard. From Iowa to Paraguay, from England to India, Monsanto is uprooting our food supply and replacing it with their patented genetically engineered creations. And along the way, farmers, communities, and nature become collateral damage. The Gazette says the movie "will freeze the blood in your veins." The Hour says it's a "horrifying enough picture" to warrant "fury." But most importantly, this critical film opens our eyes just in time. The film is the work of celebrated award-winning French filmmaker Marie-Monique Robin, whose three years of work on four continents exposes why Monsanto has become the world's poster child for malignant corporate influence in government and technology.
Combining secret documents with accounts by victims, scientists and policy makers, she guides us through a web of misleading reports, pressure tactics, collusion, and attempted corruption. And we learn how the company systematically tricked governments into allowing dangerous genetically modified (GM) foods into our diet-with Monsanto in charge of determining if they're safe.
Deception, Deception, Deception
The company's history with some of the most toxic chemicals ever produced, illustrates why they can't be trusted. Ask the folks of Anniston, Alabama, where Monsanto's PCB factory secretly poisoned the neighborhood for decades. PCBs are Monsanto's toxic oils used as coolants and lubricants for over 50 years and are now virtually omnipresent in the blood and tissues of humans and wildlife around the globe. But Anniston residents have levels hundreds or thousands of times the average. They all know their levels, which they carry as death sentences. David Baker, who lost his little brother and most of his friends to PCB-related diseases such as cancer, says Anniston kids used to run up to him, report their PCB level and ask, "How long you think I got?"
Ken Cook of the Environmental Working Group says that based on Monsanto documents made public during a trial, the company "knew the truth from the very beginning. They lied about it. They hid the truth from their neighbors." One Monsanto memo explains their justification: "We can't afford to lose one dollar of business."
snip
Replacing Nature: "Nothing Shall Be Eaten That We Don't Own" Monsanto is the world's largest seed company and many are concerned. Troy Roush says, "They are in the process of owning food, all food." Paraguayan farmer Jorge Galeano says, "Its objective is to control all of the world's food production." Renowned Indian physicist and community organizer Vandana Shiva says, "If they control seed, they control food; they know it, it's strategic. It's more powerful than bombs; it's more powerful than guns. This is the best way to control the populations of the world." The World According to Monsanto is aptly named. It is about Monsanto seeking to recreate the world in its own image, for its own benefit. They intend to replace (and patent) the entire food supply. And since their genetic pollution self-propagates in the environment, it will outlast the effects of global warming and nuclear waste. Such widespread permanent influence may not be safe with any individual or company. With Monsanto's record, the results can only be catastrophic. This powerful documentary might just inspire a global rejection of Monsanto's plans for our world. If so, it will be the most important film in history. The most important documentary you will see this year. ... more -
Monsanto sues farmer over seed patent... court to rule
Monsanto is the owner of the patented herbicide Roundup and the also-patented Roundup Ready herbicide-resistant seed.
At issue in this case is David's right to plant Roundup Ready soybean seeds that he produced from plants grown from Roundup Ready seeds he purchased from Monsanto.
David lost the case, both at trial and at the federal circuit, and was fined $786,989. Last week, David appealed to the Supreme Court.
Presently, farmers must buy Monsanto seed annually to grow a Roundup Ready crop.
Some experts believed that a recent Supreme Court ruling on patent exhaustion indicated that the Supreme Court would grant David's appeal (if patent exhaustion was the issue presented on appeal).
Patent exhaustion means that the first sale of the patent seed exhausts the patent owner's rights.
Under this doctrine, Monsanto could not prevent use of its seed after the first sale.
David did not request the Supreme Court to consider the exhaustion doctrine because he did not believe the earlier ruling to be applicable because Monsanto's license agreement restricts use of the seed distinguishing his client's case from the case at hand.
Some patent experts believe the Supreme Court will therefore deny the appeal. David's lawyer strenuously disagrees.
The result? Monsanto's right to prevent farmers from planting herbicide resistant seeds they grow from Monsanto-patented seeds will remain in place until another suitable case makes its way through the court system. This could take decades.
David's lawyer informs me that $7.25 of the $21 cost of one “unit of Roundup Ready seed is attributable to the Monsanto technology fee.
Monsanto did not respond to my calls for current price structure.
*************
I find it hard to believe that the Supreme Court in this case will rule in favor of the farmer regarding the patent. But then, it is possible though unlikely now that the patent exhaustion doctrine was not brought up in the appeal, which to me makes no sense. I wonder if they got to him? If they grant the appeal and he wins it will set a precedent for farmers everywhere who have purchased Monsanto's Roundup Ready seeds to not be obligated to purchase them every year, thus being able to save seeds as has been the practice of agriculture for centuries.
I truly find it despicable that Monsanto thinks it has the right to patent life itself and control the planting of seeds, and to then sue farmers who wish to use seeds taken from their own crops. Of course Monsanto has the clout and $$$$$$$$$$ to come down hard in influencing the decision on this appeal, as a ruling for the farmer could mean great loss of income to Monsanto. I will keep my fingers crossed for that. Kudos to this farmer for standing up to them and for farming as it should be. Monsanto is the owner of the patented herbicide Roundup and the also-patented Roundup Ready herbicide-resistant seed. ... more -
Dr. Vandana Shiva: Why Prince Charles is right: we need GM free food for food secu...
Corporate monopoly over our food systems is a food security disaster. And while in some places like India these disasters have already had an impact at a global level, they are a disaster in the making.
It is therefore unscientific, illogical and irresponsible for the Environmental Minister Mr Woolas to say that Prince Charles must provide "proof" that a disaster has happened.
I would imagine that he is aware of the environmental principle on which the UN Convention on Biological Diversity and the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change rest.
The principle is called the Precautionary Principle. It is based on the recognition that when an activity or technology has the potential to cause harm, and there is no conclusive evidence to establish the harm that can be caused, then policy and decision making must err on the side of caution.
The Environment Minister also said "Government ministers have a responsibility to base policy on science and I do strongly believe that we have a moral responsibility to the developing world to ask the question: 'Can GM crops help'?
Minister, if you could travel with me through Vidarbha and see the tears in the eyes of farmers' widows, you would be compelled to ask the question:'Can GM crops harm'? That is your moral responsibility.
It is also your responsibility to sincerely base your decisions on real science, not pseudo science. Science based policy would recognise that an agriculture that conserves biodiversity also produces more food and nutrition per unit acre.
Science based policy would recognise that if farmers fall into debt, it is not an instrument for ending poverty, but a recipe for ending the lives of small farmers.
A science based policy would not blindly spread GM crops to Africa without assessing their role in India's agrarian crisis. A science based policy would not be based on unscientific principle of "substantial equivalence" which has prevented independent and serious testing of GM foods and crops.
That is why the Supreme Court of India has served notice on the Government of India to ask why a GMO moratorium should not be imposed till proper testing protocols and tests and facilities for biosafety are in place.
end of excerpt.
``~~~
Dr. Vandana Shiva is one of the most passionate and knowledgable scholars and environmental activists on the topic of GM foods, the global water crisis, Monsanto ( bio technology), sustainability, and environmental democracy. I trust her words and her judgement on this implicitly as I too have done the research. The world needs to listen to and read her words as she speaks truth about the monopoly taking form to control both our food and water in the guise of companies stating they are pushing GM organisms on us for our own benefit, when it is really for their own.
GM foods and the poisons sprayed on them that are in our water and food are not sustainable and will not save this world from a food crisis, but may well perpetuate it especially in areas of severe drought. We have all the conventional food we need to feed this world save political corruption (World Bank) and those in power looking to deny it to those who need it most to suit their own political, economic, and ideological agendas. I hold Dr. Shiva in the highest esteem and take her word on this based on her years of experience over anyone looking to defend the monstrous crime being perpetrated by these biocompanies on our environment and our health. Corporate monopoly over our food systems is a food security disaster. And while in some places like India these disasters have already... more -
Agrobacterium & Morgellons Disease, A GM Connection?
by Dr. Mae-Wan Ho and Prof. Joe Cummins
Preliminary findings suggest a link between Morgellons Disease and Agrobacterium, a soil bacterium extensively manipulated and used in making GM crops; has genetic engineering created a new epidemic?
CDC launch investigation on Morgellons’ Disease
The Centers for Disease Control (CDC) in the United States announced the launch of an investigation on ‘Morgellons Disease’ in January 2008, after receiving thousands of complaints from people with this bewildering condition, which it describes as follows: “Persons who suffer from this unexplained skin condition report a range of cutaneous (skin) symptoms including crawling, biting and stinging sensations; granules, threads, fibers, or black speck-like materials on or beneath the skin, and/or skin lesions (e.g., rashes or sores). In addition to skin manifestations, some sufferers also report fatigue, mental confusion, short term memory loss, joint pain, and changes in visions.”
Morgellons Disease first became known in 2001, when Mary Leitao created a web site describing the illness in her young son, which she named after a 17th century medical study in France describing similar symptoms. Until then, people with Morgellons Disease have been diagnosed as cases of “delusional parasitosis”, in which the symptoms are deemed entirely imaginary, and lesions allegedly due to self-inflicted wounds.
Indeed, the debate over Morgellons Disease has continued in the pages of medical and scientific journals right up to the CDC’s announcement.
Dr. Michele Pearson, principal investigator for the CDC said that the primary goals of the study are “to learn more about who may be affected with this condition, the symptoms they experience and to look for clues about factors that might contribute to the condition,” adding that the condition is “complex”, and “may be due to multiple factors.”
In response to questions from journalists at the CDC press conference, Pearson said:
“We are aware that many patients have suffered from this condition. And, I can tell you that here at CDC, we have really been seeing an increasing number of these reports over the past year or so.”
CDC’s investigation is to be carried out in conjunction with Kaiser Permanente’s Northern California Division of Research and the US Armed Forces Institute of Pathology.
Dr. Joe Selby, Director of the Kaiser Permanente’s Northern California Division of Research, said the study would proceed in three stages. In the first stage, they will identify all members who may have seen a Kaiser Permanente physician with symptoms suggestive of this condition at any point during the 18 months between July 1 2006 and December 31, 2007, and determine whether they meet eligibility criteria for the study. In stage two, all eligible members will be invited to complete a comprehensive web based or telephone survey conducted by the CDC that examines the duration and severity of a variety of symptoms. And in stage three, those with active symptoms will be invited to the division of research for an extensive clinical examination including collection of skin biopsies, blood and urine samples.
* * * * *
Much more at link. by Dr. Mae-Wan Ho and Prof. Joe Cummins ... more -
GM sugarbeets not a sweet proposition, and citizens are fighting back
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, it is the only thing that ever has." ... more -
Exposed: Europe's GMO hype in times of food and fuel crisis
No evidence that GM crops will solve the food and fuel crisis
Most of the EU's animal feed comes from Brazil and Argentina, which are careful to grow only those varieties of feed, both GM and non-GM, that are approved in the EU, so as not to harm their export markets [10]. An article in the Financial Times quotes a Brazilian diplomatic source saying, 'We produce to satisfy our clients. We are not going to produce something they are not going to buy.' The article goes on to say that neither Argentina nor Brazil share the apocalyptic scenario currently being put forward by the biotech and livestock industries and intensive farmers [11].
Such scaremongering ignores the well-known fact that GM crops have at best, variable impacts on yields and are therefore not a solution to the food crisis, as was confirmed by the recent IAASTD (International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development) report on the future of agriculture [12].
More importantly, it ignores the fact that the major cause of the food and feed crisis is not European GM policy, but the rush to biofuels. Even the World Bank has now confirmed what NGOs have been saying ever since the notion of a food crisis was first mooted, that the Bush-subsidised ethanol boom (with the EU's agrofuel boom following in its wake) is by far the single most important factor in creating the food crisis that is driving 100m people worldwide below the poverty line. The report, which has not been published but was leaked to the UK's Guardian newspaper, says biofuels have forced global food prices up by 75 percent. The figure emphatically contradicts the US government's claims that plant-derived fuels contribute less than 3 percent to food-price rises. Senior development sources believe the report, completed in April, has not been published to avoid embarrassing President George W. Bush [13].
The irony is that exactly the same people who created this disaster by promoting the rush into agrofuels are now promoting a rush for GMOs as the solution. It is this hype that the European Commission and British politicians appear to be swallowing, without being honest about the vested interests at stake.
Monsanto does a complete about-turn on GMOs being needed to feed the world
And here's another irony. The truth about GMOs as the solution to the global food crisis is not coming from politicians but from industry itself. Previously, in the face of growing global opposition, Monsanto has long proclaimed that GM crops are vital for feeding a hungry world, while critics countered that the food is there and that distribution is the key to tackling hunger. But as opposition to biofuels is rising in Europe and even in the US on the grounds that they are not a solution to climate change and are contributing to the food crisis, Monsanto is now keen to defend the biofuels gravy-train that sent food prices sky-rocketing, and the company's spin has suddenly gone into complete reverse.
The ethanol boom may be pushing millions towards starvation and hundreds of millions deeper into poverty, but, says Monsanto's chief technology officer Rob Fraley [14], "From a production perspective, we have abundance [of food]". Fraley now says the "challenges" are in distribution and access to food because of wealth distribution, in other words, poverty.
Fraley made his pitch at the launch of a new multi-million dollar lobby group for ethanol, the Alliance for Abundant Food and Energy, that Monsanto has helped set up. There could be no clearer demonstration that Monsanto's concern has never been feeding the hungry; its leading role in the ethanol lobby shows that the hungry can happily starve, just so long as it's good for the company's bottom line.
Given that industry has revealed the truth behind its biofuels agenda, is it too much to ask of Europe's politicians that they should be equally honest about the vested interests behind the hyping of GM crops? No evidence that GM crops will solve the food and fuel crisis ... more -
She's talking about Monsanto, but it's not talking to her
Monsanto doesn't want anything to do with French investigative journalist Marie-Monique Robin.
The American biotechnology and herbicide-producing giant wouldn't co-operate with Robin in her three years researching her highly critical documentary The World According to Monsanto and her accompanying, French-language bestseller (with an English translation on the way).
Now that her film is being shown in more and more countries, and advocacy groups are featuring clips of the documentary on their websites, Monsanto still hasn't called Robin.
To many viewers, the company's "no comment" may appear to be damning in itself, given the litany of accusations made against Monsanto by farmers, scientists, watchdog groups, health and agriculture advocates.
Googling for seeds of truth
The documentary shows farmers alleging that Monsanto - a leader in developing genetically modified seed and herbicides - has pitted farmer against farmer, encouraging them to rat on anyone suspected of not buying new Monsanto seed each year. It shows agricultural experts alleging genetically modified corn has invaded indigenous Mexican corn, with monstrous varieties being found. And advocates in India alleging that cotton farmers sometimes commit suicide owing to their dependence on genetically modified crops and the risk of low harvests. The list of accusations goes on.
A spokeswoman from Monsanto Canada, however, did respond to calls for this article. "Any of the allegations that have been made in the movie have been responded to publicly on our website," spokeswoman Trish Jordan said. A segment on the company's website labelled For the Record, she explained, "basically responds to some of the common allegations that are dredged up by activists. And I think that would probably give you our position on most, if not everything, in her documentary."
The film does refer to the website, and the explanations used by Monsanto in response to various criticisms.
Still, Robin said she was astonished by what she found when making the film. "Yes, I was very surprised. It's very difficult to understand how they manage - what they called in the U.S. the revolving door," she said. By this, she means the way in which government officials and elected leaders have often worked for corporations such as Monsanto, only to later pass regulations while in office favouring their former employers.
It was also difficult to get people to talk. "It's very difficult," Robin said, whether officials within regulatory agencies, scientists or other journalists. She said that one regulatory insider told her they didn't want to have any problems with the company, since it's so powerful.
The World According to Monsanto is as disturbing as any Hollywood thriller. Robin's next documentaries will likely be just as heavy, with a film on the U.S. military's use of what many see as torture during interrogations and a documentary on environmental causes of cancer.
So what drives Robin to investigate such dire topics?
"I have three daughters at home," she said, "and I think when I'm doing this kind of documentary, it's for my daughters. ... With what's going on with GMOs [genetically modified organisms] and what it means, in 20 years, if we don't react, it's very worrisome."
Aug.1,2008 Monsanto doesn't want anything to do with French investigative journalist Marie-Monique Robin. ... more -
Obama considers Monsanto ally Ann Veneman for VP (!?)
Barack Obama's vice presidential search team had begun floating the name of former Secretary of Agriculture Ann Veneman, one of George Bush's most loyal lieutenants, as a possible running-mate on the 2008 Democratic ticket.
What the Obama camp is doing is clear enough. They are signaling that the candidate might consider a bipartisan "unity" ticket. That's reasonable, as long as the Republican has some record of taking stands that might by some reasonable stretch of the imagination be considered breaks with Republican orthodoxy. Of course, Nebraska Senator Chuck Hagel, an edgier critic of the Bush administration's foreign policies than most Democrats who recently traveled with Obama to Afghanistan and Iraq, tops most lists of cross-over contenders.
Former Iowa Congressman Jim Leach, a determined internationalist who like Obama opposed attacking Iraq and generally served as a moderate (some would even say "liberal") Republican, would fit the bill.
Maybe someone like former Rhode Island Senator Lincoln Chafee, a steadfast Iraq War foe who has endorsed Obama, would find a place on a list of possible running mates.
Perhaps former U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations John Danforth, who was no liberal when he served as a senator from Missouri but who is universally recognized as an honorable and realistic political player, would fit the bill.
But Ann Veneman?
Veneman would be a uniquely awful choice.
All of her political roots are in California -- where her father was a prominent ally of Ronald Reagan -- a state Obama will win with or without her in November.
Veneman is not trusted by farm and rural folk, so it would be ridiculous to think that adding her to the ticket would help in Midwestern and Plains states that might be in play this fall. In fact, this uniquely un-charismatic bureaucrat who has never held elective office was booed on visits to farm country when she served as Bush's Secretary of Agriculture.
And Veneman, whose background was as a corporate lawyer specializing in trade issues, was known to organized labor as one the most militant advocates for free trade in a militantly pro-free trade Bush administration.
In sum, it is hard to imagine a worse Republican to put on a Democratic ticket.
When Veneman first entered the national spotlight in 2001, I penned an assessment of her record for The Nation.
It was titled "No Friend of the Farmer" and read:
~~~~~~~~~~
I surely hope this is NOT true. If it is and it ever happened, NO WAY he would get my vote. Just what is his "search team" smoking? Proof positive this process is not about principle for her name to even be on the list. Barack Obama's vice presidential search team had begun floating the name of former Secretary of Agriculture Ann Veneman, one of G... more -
Indian farmers shun genetically modified crops for organic solutions
Bt cotton was engineered to combat pests, with the introduction into the cotton seed of a gene from a soil bacterium called Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt), which has a natural insect-killing poison called Bt-toxin. When it was introduced into India at the turn of the century, it was promoted as the "wonder product" that would solve the serious problem of pests, which many of India's 17 million cotton farmers were facing.
Many of the farmers had not been growing cotton as a cash crop for very long. In the late 1980s, under pressure from the International Monetary Fund, India had opened up its strongly protected economy and encouraged its farmers to switch to modern farming, with its hybrid seeds, fertilisers and pesticides. The idea was to turn India into an important exporter of commodities, including cotton.
At first, cotton farmers did well. They got high yields and enjoyed a real increase in income. But then problems arose. The hybrid cotton proved susceptible to pests and diseases, and it was not uncommon for farmers to spray their fields up to 30 times in a single season. Production costs went through the roof and farmers got trapped in debt. They became desperate for a technical fix, and Bt cotton seemed to be the answer.
In its first year of sales, Mahyco-Monsanto sold its entire stock of Bt cotton. According to the company, the area in India under Bt cotton rose from 3.1m acres in 2005 to 14.4m acres in 2007. According to Sekhar Natarajan, regional leader of Monsanto India, Bt cotton yielded 700kg-900kg per acre, compared with 300kg-400kg an acre with conventional seeds.
However, some say that what has been happening on the ground has been very different from the official success story. Scientists Abdul Qayum and Kiran Sakhari assessed Bt cotton's performance in the first three years and found that, despite claims by the company, farmers were not achieving big yields. This perhaps was to be expected, because Bt cotton had been engineered to reduce pesticide use, not to increase yields. But, more surprisingly, they found that pesticide use was not falling either, because farmers were facing serious problems with secondary pests. They worked out that, on average, the income of non-Bt farmers was 60% higher than that of Bt farmers. Monsanto contests these numbers.
There have been other, more alarming problems. In her chat with the visiting farmers, Sattemma says she had seen several of her neighbour's goats die after spending all day grazing on post-harvest Bt cotton plants. Such a story could be dismissed as anecdotal, if it were not backed up by more solid evidence. In 2006, more than 1,800 sheep died in similar circumstances in other villages in Warangal district. The symptoms and post-mortem findings suggested that they had died from severe toxicity. Hundreds of agricultural workers had also developed allergic symptoms when exposed to Bt cotton. Bt cotton was engineered to combat pests, with the introduction into the cotton seed of a gene from a soil bacterium called Bacillus t... more -
Small Farmers, Ecofeminism, Vandana Shiva
For more than a century, farms have been getting bigger while seeds, fertilization and pest control have been getting more uniform. Led by farm suppliers, it has raised productivity. But negative byproducts of this trend include increasing chemical dependence and loss of biodiversity. Ecofeminist Vandana Shiva is at the Organic World Congress to protest the human and environmental cost of monoculture. The pendulum may be swinging back her way as consumer preference (among "locavores") for locally grown food and organic food increases, as the public becomes more aware of the impact of chemicals on the environment, and as higher petroleum prices result in pricier fertilizers and pesticides.
Vandana is one of the speakers at the opening ceremony of the Organic World Congress in Modena's large Piazza Grande, which fills the center of the city behind the famed (Michelin three-starred) Romanesque Duomo, shown below earlier in the day as the seats were being set up.
An eloquent defender of the property rights of small farms in India and other countries, Vandana has devoted much of her life to research on the effects of loss of biodiversity resulting from monoculture and has allied herself with the Slow Food Movement. Her books include The Violence of the Green Revolution and Monocultures of the Mind. She decided that science was not serving the interests of small farmers, so she left the academic world and formed her own organization, Navdanya.
Because she associates monoculture with a masculine wish to dominate -- and sees it as threatening both small farmers and biodiversity in the name of temporarily higher productivity -- Vandana has been called an ecofeminist, a term attributed to the late Francoise d'Eaubonne describing someone resistant to abuse of either women or mother nature, and adds in empathy for the small farmer in developing countries.
Small-farm consolidation continues, as was highlighted in South Africa just this week. The Valley Trust has for years been working with rural communities to provide health and other services and support organic farms. It has recently broken ranks with the South African Department of Agriculture for its pressure on small-scale farmers to join cooperatives. Small farmers are promised financial help, farm equipment, water piping and free seeds in return for joining the larger farming unit. The catch is that the small farmer must plant genetically modified seeds, which create farmer dependence on commercial monoculture. The director of Biowatch, an NGO promoting alternatives to GMO farming, says: "In the end, most farmers end up in huge debt, because they can't save seeds and are obliged to buy the matching GM fertilizers and pesticides" .
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Dr. Shiva was nominated for the Nobel Prize in 2005. I think she should be nominated again and win in this year for her work to sow seeds of hope and peace in place of the seeds of deception and environmental destruction that have been planted by Monsanto. For more than a century, farms have been getting bigger while seeds, fertilization and pest control have been getting more uniform. Le... more -
India: Farmers, civil societies seek scrapping of GMO bill
'The Coalition For GM-Free India', representing farmers' unions and civil society organisations today sought scrapping of the National Biotechnology Regulatory Bill-2008 pleading that 'its provisions are unscientific, undemocratic and amenable to reduce Indians as 'guinea pigs' for the promotion of Genetically Modified (GM) crops and GM foods.'
The Bill envisages setting up a National Biotechnology Regulatory Authority (NBRA) for ensuring a 'single widow' provision for speedy clearance of GM organisms and products. Such fast clearance mechanism is being put in place to facilitate the approval and propogation in India of GM organisms and products being developed by Monsanto and multinational companies, said a communique issued by the farmer leaders and experts from civil societies network after a-day-long deliberations here.
Being hurriedly pushed through, the Bill fixes a deadline for public feedback on July 30 to circumvent any worthwhile discussion organised in public domain by scientific community or arranged by the Department of Biotechnology (DGT), which has mooted the Bill, said Dr Devinder Sharma, a noted food and trade policy analyst.
''The proposed mechanism is an express clearing house for fast track approvals in favour of the biotech industry, at the expense of health and environment requisites,'' he added.
The NBRA proposals have been drawn up by the wrong people for the wrong reasons with the wrong perspectives, said Mr Yudhvir Singh, a leader of the Bharatiya Kisan Union. And the proposed Authority , he said, ''Denies and violates constitutional rights of the states on their agriculture and citizens rights to remain GM-free.'' This also creates a hurdle to progressive decisions made by the states including Kerala on implementating organic farming policies to protect farmers interests and imposes GM crops everywhere, Mr Singh said.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Firstly, I just want to state that in response to the thread I posted this past weekend regarding paid shills or others voting these threads down to hide them... if there are, you lose. I am not going to be intimidated to stop reporting on this important issue for our very survival. What is being done in India as well as around the world by these biotech companies regarding GM crops is a travesty of Democracy and morality. I will not leave this or any site, especially current.com that gives me the chance to have this information dessiminated to people to hopefully effect change. Vote it down if you wish, but the information and truth of it will remain the same as will my resolve to report this information regardless.
Monsanto is an evil company that is preying upon developing countries as well as our own to shove these GM seeds down the throats of farmers already living in poverty. They will continue to deny them their Democratic right to liberty and our right to proper disclosure all in the name of profit at the expense of our global environment. It is companies like Monsanto that are raising food prices in collusion with the World Bank and WTO to push these seeds as well as privitizing water supplies, and it is companies like Monsanto that must be fought by informed consumers.
We have the right to know what is in our food, where our water comes from, and the right to say NO to any attempt to force these fake toxic foods upon us. If there is any way I and others here can effect that change, then I am going to continue to do it.
Thanks to all who responded in the other thread and also to the staff who explained the situation. Hopefully we will see a resolution. Current has a chance to be a true vanguard network for the people. I am grateful to have the chance to be a part of that. 'The Coalition For GM-Free India', representing farmers' unions and civil society organisations today sought scrapping ... more -
Monsanto's Sordid History
Monsanto, best known today for its agricultural biotechnology products, has a long and dirty history of polluting this country and others with some of the most toxic compounds known to humankind. From PCBs to Agent Orange to Roundup, we have many reasons to question the motives of this company that claims to be working to reduce environmental destruction and feed the world with its genetically engineered food crops.
Headquartered near St. Louis, Missouri, the Monsanto Chemical Company was founded in 1901. Monsanto became a leading manufacturer of sulfuric acid and other industrial chemicals in the 1920s. In the 1930s, Monsanto began producing polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs). PCBs, widely used as lubricants, hydraulic fluids, cutting oils, waterproof coatings and liquid sealants, are potent carcinogens and have been implicated in reproductive, developmental and immune system disorders.
The world’s center of PCB manufacturing was Monsanto’s plant on the outskirts of East St. Louis, Illinois, which has the highest rate of fetal death and immature births in the state. By 1982, nearby Times Beach, Missouri, was found to be so thoroughly contaminated with dioxin, a by-product of PCB manufacturing, that the government ordered it evacuated. Dioxins are endocrine and immune system disruptors, cause congenital birth defects, reproductive and developmental problems, and increase the incidence of cancer, heart disease and diabetes in laboratory animals.
By the 1940s, Monsanto had begun focusing on plastics and synthetic fabrics like polystyrene (still widely used in food packaging and other consumer products), which is ranked fifth in the EPA’s 1980s listing of chemicals whose production generates the most total hazardous waste.
During World War II, Monsanto played a significant role in the Manhattan Project to develop the atom bomb.
Following the war, Monsanto championed the use of chemical pesticides in agriculture, and began manufacturing the herbicide 2,4,5-T, which contains dioxin. Monsanto has been accused of covering up or failing to report dioxin contamination in a wide range of its products.
The herbicide “Agent Orange,” used by U.S. military forces as a defoliant during the Vietnam War, was a mixture of 2,4,5-T and 2,4-D and had very high concentrations of dioxin. U.S. Vietnam War veterans have suffered from a host of debilitating symptoms attributable to Agent Orange exposure, and since the end of the war an estimated 500,000 Vietnamese children have been born with deformities.
In the 1970s, Monsanto began manufacturing the herbicide Roundup, which has been marketed as a safe, general-purpose herbicide for widespread commercial and consumer use, even though its key ingredient, glyphosate, is a highly toxic poison for animals and humans. In 1997, The New York State Attorney General took Monsanto to court and Monsanto was subsequently forced to stop claiming that Roundup is “biodegradable” and “environmentally friendly.”
Monsanto has been repeatedly fined and ruled against for, among many things, mislabeling containers of Roundup, failing to report health data to EPA, and chemical spills and improper chemical deposition. In 1995, Monsanto ranked fifth among U.S. corporations in EPA’s Toxic Release Inventory, having discharged 37 million pounds of toxic chemicals into the air, land, water and underground.
Since the inception of Plan Colombia in 2000, the US has spent hundreds of millions of dollars in funding aerial sprayings of Monsanto’s Roundup herbicides in Colombia. The Roundup is often applied in concentrations 26 times higher than what is recommended for agricultural use. Additionally, it contains at least one surfactant, Cosmo-Flux 411f, whose ingredients are a trade secret, has never been approved for use in the US, and which quadruples the biological action of the herbicide.
cont... Monsanto, best known today for its agricultural biotechnology products, has a long and dirty history of polluting this country and oth... more -
South Africa: small farmers pushed to plant GM seed
Baphethile Mntambo has been farming organically for the past five years because she knows that avoiding chemicals will in the long-term benefit her yield.
She decided not to plant genetically modified seeds because she has heard that they cannot be saved for the next season and will eventually deplete her soil. But she is not entirely sure how and why.
"I have heard about GMO, but I don't understand what it is exactly," she says. "The only thing I know is that it will cost a lot of money to buy the seeds, the fertiliser and the pesticides."
Mntambo is one of 50 small-scale farmers in the Valley of a Thousand Hills in South Africa's KwaZulu-Natal province who have been taught how to farm organically by non-governmental organisation Valley Trust. The farmers learn to plant seasonal crops that will provide their families both with food security and an opportunity to generate income by selling their produce at local markets.
"We decided to promote organic farming to create sustainability for small-scale farmers. We believe it is the only way to give them food sovereignty and stability," explains Valley Trust food security facilitator Nhlanhla Vezi.
The Valley Trust used to cooperate with the Department of Agriculture, according to Vezi, but the collaboration ceased when the department started to put pressure on small-scale farmers to form cooperatives if they wanted its support. "The Department makes very attractive offers to provide farming equipment, water piping and seeds, but then uses this as a strategy to push GMO because of agreements they have signed with multinational GM seed patent holders," says Vezi.
Rural farmers are often lured into planting GM seeds by the Department of Agriculture by promises of substantial bank loans and the prospect of huge earnings, agrees Lesley Liddell, director of Biowatch, an NGO promoting alternatives to GMO farming by encouraging farmers to inter-crop, use natural fertilisers and non-chemical crops. "But in the end, most farmers end up in huge debt, because they can't save seeds and are obliged to buy the matching GM fertilisers and pesticides."
Yet, small-scale farmers are often so desperate for financial support that they consider planting GMO crops against better knowledge if they are offered the seeds for free. "I know that GMO is not good in the long run, but if someone gave me these seeds I would still plant them," says Tholani Bhengu, another small-scale farmer who works with the Valley Trust. "For me, the most important thing is to bring food on the table every week. I can't afford to think now about what will happen next year."
Because small-scale farmers in rural Africa often have little or no formal education, they are generally unable to make informed choices around GMO farming. "We encourage them to attend portfolio committees that discuss GMO regulations, but the farmers' knowledge is very limited, so it's difficult for them to contribute. They understand the issues but not the legislation," says Liddell.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
That last quoted paragraph is exactly why these small scale farmers are the targets of multinationals like Monsanto. And as well in South Africa, mandatory labelling is not required.
They are using the poverty these farmers live in as a way to force them into planting GM crap... and when their GM crops fail because of drought or cross contamination, no one is there to bail them out and they have to rebuy seed and "herbicide" again if they wish to plant as they get deeper in debt while Monsanto and other companies reap the benefits.
Insidious. Baphethile Mntambo has been farming organically for the past five years because she knows that avoiding chemicals will in the long-ter...
-
