First, this is an excellent article from the October 3rd edition of The Nation. The article is called The Food Movement: It's Power and Possibilities and was written by Frances Moore Lappe', author of the 1971 book, Diet For A Small Planet.
A couple highlights from the article, which covers issues concerning farm workers, land, seed, culture, and economics:
"Fueling the consolidation were three Supreme Court rulings since 1980—including one in 2002, with an opinion written by former Monsanto attorney Clarence Thomas—making it possible to patent life forms, including seeds. And in 1992 the Food and Drug Administration released its policy on genetically modified organisms, claiming that 'the agency is not aware of any information showing that [GMO] foods…differ from other foods in any meaningful or uniform way.'
"The government’s green light fueled the rapid spread of GMOs and monopolies—so now most US corn and soybeans are GMO, with genes patented largely by one company: Monsanto. The FDA position helped make GMOs’ spread so invisible that most Americans still don’t believe they’ve ever eaten them—even though the grocery industry says they could be in 75 percent of processed food.
"Even fewer Americans are aware that in 1999 attorney Steven Druker reported that in 40,000 pages of FDA files secured via a lawsuit, he found 'memorandum after memorandum contain[ing] warnings about the unique hazards of genetically engineered food,' including the possibility that they could contain 'unexpected toxins, carcinogens or allergens.'
"Yet at the same time, public education campaigns have succeeded in confining almost 80 percent of GMO planting to just three countries: the United States, Brazil and Argentina. In more than two dozen countries and in the European Union they’ve helped pass mandatory GMO labeling. Even China requires it."
...and...
"In all these ways and more, the global food movement challenges a failing frame: one that defines successful agriculture and the solution to hunger as better technologies increasing yields of specific crops. This is typically called 'industrial agriculture,' but a better description might be 'productivist,' because it fixates on production, or 'reductivist,' because it narrows our focus to a single element.
"Its near obsession with the yield of a monoculture is anti-ecological. It not only pollutes, diminishes and disrupts nature; it misses ecology’s first lesson: relationships. Productivism isolates agriculture from its relational context—from its culture.
"In 2008 a singular report helped crack the productivist frame. This report, 'The International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development' (known simply as IAASTD), explained that solutions to poverty, hunger and the climate crisis require agriculture that promotes producers’ livelihoods, knowledge, resiliency, health and equitable gender relations, while enriching the natural environment and helping to balance the carbon cycle. Painstakingly developed over four years by 400 experts, the report has gained the support of more than fifty-nine governments, and even productivist strongholds like the World Bank."
I recommend reading the article. It contains a lot of good information and some hope.
Also, I came across this documentary, Back to Eden. There's a lot of Christian religion in it which is a topic for a different forum, but the premise of food production in harmony with nature is one I really get behind. The film is an hour forty six minutes and you can watch it right at the link above.
There are exciting things to talk about regarding the garden, resolutions, and such. Right now I'm busy with harvest-canning-hunting season. Hopefully I will find time to post something soon!
Showing posts with label genetically modified. Show all posts
Showing posts with label genetically modified. Show all posts
Thursday, September 22, 2011
Thursday, September 8, 2011
GMO Labeling
This article came out yesterday on Western Farm Press's website. It amazes me how it makes the argument of why we need genetically modified labeling and just how far gone our food system really is. I don't see a reasonable argument anywhere in the article that we shouldn't have labeling so we can know whether our food is natural or not. The idea that we need to do these things to feed starving people would have some weight if we were actually feeding starving people, but the fact is we are not. As I have said before, we have plenty of food and the means to transport it all over the world, the only thing we need to feed hungry people is the will to do it.
The message I get from this article is exactly what I have been saying: We desperately need a food system that is more concerned with health and ecology than money. As long as money is the top priority, big-business will continue to manipulate our food supply at the expense of our heath, the health and well-being of farm animals, and the planet.
Here's the article:
Time to take on anti-biotech crowd over GMO labeling
by Harry Cline
The California anti-biotech/anti-genetically modified/anti-science crowd is at it again.
This time around they are calling themselves “advocates for truth in food labeling” and are gathering signatures to get another infamous California voter initiative on the 2012 California electoral ballot. If passed, it would mandate that GMO foods be labeled with some kind of warning.
Bring it on.
It is about time this GMO labeling issue be tackled head-on so the public can be told the truth. Truth is, everything we eat today has been genetically modified, using either conventional plant and animal breeding or biotech technology.
For example, a team of scientists at the University of California has identified no less than 14 so-called genetically modified feedstuffs that are fed to dairy cattle. These are just the biotech products. Of course conventionally genetically modified feedstuff is also fed to milk-producing dairy cows.
These include Roundup Ready corn, Bt grain and silage corn as well as distillers grain; Roundup Ready soybeans, Roundup Ready cottonseed, Bt cottonseed, Roundup Ready alfalfa, Roundup Ready canola, BST used to increase milk production, genetically-engineered Renet used in 90 percent of commercial cheese production, Roundup Ready sugar beets, glufosinate-resistant corn grain and silage, glufosinate-resistant cotton, glufosinate-resistant canola and imidazalione-tolerant corn.
Not all dairy cows are fed this complete list, but enough to dare say if you buy milk in California, it will have to be labeled GMO under the hopefully ill-fated initiative. I suspect organic milk has some of the same ingredients since the overwhelming majority of corn, cotton and soybeans are biotech crops. If not, it would most certainly be conventionally genetically modified.
Of course a lot of those feeds are also fed to poultry and beef cattle.
And we could go on and on, right into the heart of the organic/anti biotech movement - the notorious Organic Trade Association - where one of its board members is a vice president and general manager of Smuckers Natural Foods. Smuckers uses high fructose corn syrup and other GMO ingredients in various jams and jellies. There are other food producing companies represented on the OTA board that also sell biotech foods.
The absurdity of this anti-biotech movement becomes more apparent each day as people realize that the world needs increasingly more food to head off starvation by millions. The most logical way to meet this challenge is with scientific advancement, including biotechnology.
The cost of food continues to go up with the growing scarcity of products as the world competes for food. The public is growing more aware of this each day.
It is time agriculture and food processors take on this anti-biotech crowd straight out with the facts and put a stop to this mandatory GMO labeling nonsense. It is time consumers are told the truth and put this anti-biotech initiative in the same category as the ludicrous anti-circumcision ban initiative a bunch of amazingly arrogant whackos in San Francisco tried to get on a city election ballot. A superior court recently tossed the initiative off the ballot, even though enough signatures were collected to put it on a San Francisco city election ballot. Even the ACLU supported its removal from the ballot because it violated constitutional and religious freedoms.
The mandatory GMO labeling proposal is going nowhere in Washington. Maybe it is time to bury it in California. It would be expensive to defeat. However, the time is right to stop this nonsense where it all started, in California.
[READ THE ORIGINAL ARTICLE HERE]
The message I get from this article is exactly what I have been saying: We desperately need a food system that is more concerned with health and ecology than money. As long as money is the top priority, big-business will continue to manipulate our food supply at the expense of our heath, the health and well-being of farm animals, and the planet.
Here's the article:
Time to take on anti-biotech crowd over GMO labeling
by Harry Cline
The California anti-biotech/anti-genetically modified/anti-science crowd is at it again.
This time around they are calling themselves “advocates for truth in food labeling” and are gathering signatures to get another infamous California voter initiative on the 2012 California electoral ballot. If passed, it would mandate that GMO foods be labeled with some kind of warning.
Bring it on.
It is about time this GMO labeling issue be tackled head-on so the public can be told the truth. Truth is, everything we eat today has been genetically modified, using either conventional plant and animal breeding or biotech technology.
For example, a team of scientists at the University of California has identified no less than 14 so-called genetically modified feedstuffs that are fed to dairy cattle. These are just the biotech products. Of course conventionally genetically modified feedstuff is also fed to milk-producing dairy cows.
These include Roundup Ready corn, Bt grain and silage corn as well as distillers grain; Roundup Ready soybeans, Roundup Ready cottonseed, Bt cottonseed, Roundup Ready alfalfa, Roundup Ready canola, BST used to increase milk production, genetically-engineered Renet used in 90 percent of commercial cheese production, Roundup Ready sugar beets, glufosinate-resistant corn grain and silage, glufosinate-resistant cotton, glufosinate-resistant canola and imidazalione-tolerant corn.
Not all dairy cows are fed this complete list, but enough to dare say if you buy milk in California, it will have to be labeled GMO under the hopefully ill-fated initiative. I suspect organic milk has some of the same ingredients since the overwhelming majority of corn, cotton and soybeans are biotech crops. If not, it would most certainly be conventionally genetically modified.
Of course a lot of those feeds are also fed to poultry and beef cattle.
And we could go on and on, right into the heart of the organic/anti biotech movement - the notorious Organic Trade Association - where one of its board members is a vice president and general manager of Smuckers Natural Foods. Smuckers uses high fructose corn syrup and other GMO ingredients in various jams and jellies. There are other food producing companies represented on the OTA board that also sell biotech foods.
The absurdity of this anti-biotech movement becomes more apparent each day as people realize that the world needs increasingly more food to head off starvation by millions. The most logical way to meet this challenge is with scientific advancement, including biotechnology.
The cost of food continues to go up with the growing scarcity of products as the world competes for food. The public is growing more aware of this each day.
It is time agriculture and food processors take on this anti-biotech crowd straight out with the facts and put a stop to this mandatory GMO labeling nonsense. It is time consumers are told the truth and put this anti-biotech initiative in the same category as the ludicrous anti-circumcision ban initiative a bunch of amazingly arrogant whackos in San Francisco tried to get on a city election ballot. A superior court recently tossed the initiative off the ballot, even though enough signatures were collected to put it on a San Francisco city election ballot. Even the ACLU supported its removal from the ballot because it violated constitutional and religious freedoms.
The mandatory GMO labeling proposal is going nowhere in Washington. Maybe it is time to bury it in California. It would be expensive to defeat. However, the time is right to stop this nonsense where it all started, in California.
[READ THE ORIGINAL ARTICLE HERE]
Thursday, July 21, 2011
Books On Genetically Modified Foods
One of my most popular posts is Arguments Against Genetically Modified Foods, which details the United Nations' three major concerns regarding GM foods.
I am happy to see that there is such interest in the subject -- climate change has the potential of being the biggest issue mankind has ever dealt with and how we feed ourselves is intrinsically linked.
Since the interest is there, I am posting some books on the subject for those who might wish to dig a little deeper:
I am happy to see that there is such interest in the subject -- climate change has the potential of being the biggest issue mankind has ever dealt with and how we feed ourselves is intrinsically linked.
Since the interest is there, I am posting some books on the subject for those who might wish to dig a little deeper:
Monday, July 11, 2011
FDA Approves Genetically Modified Grass
FDA Approves Genetically Modified Grass: A Blow to the Organic Movement
Esther Farin, July 10, 2011
Just as sneakily as it approved genetically modified corn, soy, and various other plants, the FDA cleared the way for genetically modified Kentucky bluegrass made by Scotts Miracle-Gro on Friday, July 1st. Like other genetically modified plants, genes of foreign materials (in this case corn, rice, and other plants) were inserted into the seeds to create Kentucky bluegrass. The intent of this lab-created grass is to withstand copious amounts of Round-Up weedkiller, brought to us by Monsanto, that this nation's soil could stand to do without. This modified grass would be used and sold as lawn grass.
GM Kentucky bluegrass could have a devastating impact to the organic movement if it grows wild, because it will contaminate fields. And because genetically modified seeds are patented for growing, organic farmers may also face unwarranted lawsuits as a result. Coupled with the fact that this grass is actually considered a "noxious weed" due to its glysophate resistance, its approval should leave most scratching their heads.
Although genetically modified crops have been used as food for well over a decade, sold in fast food, frozen meals, and processed foods to hundreds of millions of unknowing Americans, it is only within the past few years that their controversy has come to light. People are concerned both with the health implications of genetically modified plants as well as their impact on the environment, That a lawn grass can withstand unlimited amounts of pesticide does not necessarily translate for healthy living and the impact of usage of this grass in people's homes could lead to damage to the soil that will leave them unable to plant much else.
Approval of GM Kentucky bluegrass also paves the way for other plants to pass through the FDA's approval system without any scientific testing, further disrupting the U.S.'s damaged environment and food supply while going unregulated.
[READ THE ORIGINAL ARTICLE HERE]
Esther Farin, July 10, 2011
Just as sneakily as it approved genetically modified corn, soy, and various other plants, the FDA cleared the way for genetically modified Kentucky bluegrass made by Scotts Miracle-Gro on Friday, July 1st. Like other genetically modified plants, genes of foreign materials (in this case corn, rice, and other plants) were inserted into the seeds to create Kentucky bluegrass. The intent of this lab-created grass is to withstand copious amounts of Round-Up weedkiller, brought to us by Monsanto, that this nation's soil could stand to do without. This modified grass would be used and sold as lawn grass.
GM Kentucky bluegrass could have a devastating impact to the organic movement if it grows wild, because it will contaminate fields. And because genetically modified seeds are patented for growing, organic farmers may also face unwarranted lawsuits as a result. Coupled with the fact that this grass is actually considered a "noxious weed" due to its glysophate resistance, its approval should leave most scratching their heads.
Although genetically modified crops have been used as food for well over a decade, sold in fast food, frozen meals, and processed foods to hundreds of millions of unknowing Americans, it is only within the past few years that their controversy has come to light. People are concerned both with the health implications of genetically modified plants as well as their impact on the environment, That a lawn grass can withstand unlimited amounts of pesticide does not necessarily translate for healthy living and the impact of usage of this grass in people's homes could lead to damage to the soil that will leave them unable to plant much else.
Approval of GM Kentucky bluegrass also paves the way for other plants to pass through the FDA's approval system without any scientific testing, further disrupting the U.S.'s damaged environment and food supply while going unregulated.
[READ THE ORIGINAL ARTICLE HERE]
Wednesday, June 8, 2011
Regulators Knew World's Best-Selling Herbicide Causes Problems, New Report Finds
Sadly, this doesn't surprise me at all...
Roundup Birth Defects: Regulators Knew World's Best-Selling Herbicide Causes Problems, New Report Finds
Lucia Graves
lucia@huffingtonpost.com
First Posted: 06/ 7/11 07:48 PM ET Updated: 06/ 8/11 05:36 PM ET
WASHINGTON -- Industry regulators have known for years that Roundup, the world's best-selling herbicide produced by U.S. company Monsanto, causes birth defects, according to a new report released Tuesday.
The report, "Roundup and birth defects: Is the public being kept in the dark?" found regulators knew as long ago as 1980 that glyphosate, the chemical on which Roundup is based, can cause birth defects in laboratory animals.
But despite such warnings, and although the European Commission has known that glyphosate causes malformations since at least 2002, the information was not made public.
Instead regulators misled the public about glyphosate's safety, according to the report, and as recently as last year, the German Federal Office for Consumer Protection and Food Safety, the German government body dealing with the glyphosate review, told the European Commission that there was no evidence glyphosate causes birth defects.
The report comes months after researchers found that genetically-modified crops used in conjunction Roundup contain a pathogen that may cause animal miscarriages. After observing the newly discovered organism back in February, Don Huber, an emeritus professor at Purdue University, wrote an open letter to Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack requesting a moratorium on deregulating crops genetically altered to be immune to Roundup, which are commonly called Roundup Ready crops.
In the letter, Huber also commented on the herbicide itself, saying: "It is well-documented that glyphosate promotes soil pathogens and is already implicated with the increase of more than 40 plant diseases; it dismantles plant defenses by chelating vital nutrients; and it reduces the bioavailability of nutrients in feed, which in turn can cause animal disorders."
Although glyphosate was originally due to be reviewed in 2012, the Commission decided late last year not to bring the review forward, instead delaying it until 2015. The chemical will not be reviewed under more stringent, up-to-date standards until 2030.
"Our examination of the evidence leads us to the conclusion that the current approval of glyphosate and Roundup is deeply flawed and unreliable," wrote the report authors in their conclusion. "What is more, we have learned from experts familiar with pesticide assessments and approvals that the case of glyphosate is not unusual.
"They say that the approvals of numerous pesticides rest on data and risk assessments that are just as scientifically flawed, if not more so," the authors added. "This is all the more reason why the Commission must urgently review glyphosate and other pesticides according to the most rigorous and up-to-date standards."
[READ THE ORIGINAL ARTICLE]
Roundup Birth Defects: Regulators Knew World's Best-Selling Herbicide Causes Problems, New Report Finds
Lucia Graves
lucia@huffingtonpost.com
First Posted: 06/ 7/11 07:48 PM ET Updated: 06/ 8/11 05:36 PM ET
WASHINGTON -- Industry regulators have known for years that Roundup, the world's best-selling herbicide produced by U.S. company Monsanto, causes birth defects, according to a new report released Tuesday.
The report, "Roundup and birth defects: Is the public being kept in the dark?" found regulators knew as long ago as 1980 that glyphosate, the chemical on which Roundup is based, can cause birth defects in laboratory animals.
But despite such warnings, and although the European Commission has known that glyphosate causes malformations since at least 2002, the information was not made public.
Instead regulators misled the public about glyphosate's safety, according to the report, and as recently as last year, the German Federal Office for Consumer Protection and Food Safety, the German government body dealing with the glyphosate review, told the European Commission that there was no evidence glyphosate causes birth defects.
The report comes months after researchers found that genetically-modified crops used in conjunction Roundup contain a pathogen that may cause animal miscarriages. After observing the newly discovered organism back in February, Don Huber, an emeritus professor at Purdue University, wrote an open letter to Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack requesting a moratorium on deregulating crops genetically altered to be immune to Roundup, which are commonly called Roundup Ready crops.
In the letter, Huber also commented on the herbicide itself, saying: "It is well-documented that glyphosate promotes soil pathogens and is already implicated with the increase of more than 40 plant diseases; it dismantles plant defenses by chelating vital nutrients; and it reduces the bioavailability of nutrients in feed, which in turn can cause animal disorders."
Although glyphosate was originally due to be reviewed in 2012, the Commission decided late last year not to bring the review forward, instead delaying it until 2015. The chemical will not be reviewed under more stringent, up-to-date standards until 2030.
"Our examination of the evidence leads us to the conclusion that the current approval of glyphosate and Roundup is deeply flawed and unreliable," wrote the report authors in their conclusion. "What is more, we have learned from experts familiar with pesticide assessments and approvals that the case of glyphosate is not unusual.
"They say that the approvals of numerous pesticides rest on data and risk assessments that are just as scientifically flawed, if not more so," the authors added. "This is all the more reason why the Commission must urgently review glyphosate and other pesticides according to the most rigorous and up-to-date standards."
[READ THE ORIGINAL ARTICLE]
Monday, May 30, 2011
New Research Shows Factory Farms are NOT the Way to Feed the World
I saw this article last week and haven't had a chance to share it until now. The article mentions the video here (which plainly says "unauthorized use or distribution prohibited", but I'm going to assume that, since it's up on You Tube, it's safe to embed alongside an article promoting it.)
Here's the article, by pollywog on My Auburn California:
Farmageddon...The Unseen War on American Family Farms, produced and directed by Kristin Canty (Google this or go to Mercola doc com to watch the video. Just search for the title of this article)
Conventional opinion is that feeding the world by 2050 will necessitate a massive, global ramp-up of industrial-scale, corporate-led agriculture. But this is not always the opinion of scientists whose work takes them out of the laboratory and into farm fields and ecosystems, such as soil experts, ecologists, and development specialists.
One recently published scientific paper urges a fundamental rethinking of the U.S. agricultural-research system, which it calls "narrowly focused on productivity and efficiency" at the expense of public health and ecological resilience. It also calls for a revamping of the Farm Bill, which it argues uses subsidies to "mask market, social, and environmental factors associated with conventional production systems."
According to Grist:
"While conventional wisdom holds that scientists who study agriculture think only lots of GMOs and agrichemicals can feed us going forward, [this research] team has quite a different set of recommendations in mind: 'organic farming, alternative livestock production (e.g., grass-fed), mixed crop and livestock systems, and perennial grains.' They are by no means the only high-level researchers to reach such conclusions."
Sources:
Grist May 11, 2011
Science May 6, 2011 (PDF)
Dr. Mercola's Comments:
From a purely financial perspective, factory farms, or Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs) make loads of economic sense. Large numbers of animals, typically 1,000 or more, are raised in a small area, fed cheap, typically grain-based, genetically modified food, and supplemented with hormones and antibiotics to maximize their growth potential in the shortest amount of time possible.
"Indulgences" like access to pasture or natural foods, sunlight and fresh air are not a part of the equation as they don't positively impact profits.
As it stands, Time magazine reported that 2 percent of U.S. livestock facilities produce 40 percent of farm animals, and these CAFOs have been highly promoted as the best way to produce food for the masses.
But thankfully a ray of hope has emerged.
New Policy Reform Paper Urges Transition to Sustainable Agriculture Systems
A very bright, forward-thinking paper from a group of researchers led by Washington State University soil scientist John P. Reganold, published in Science, has summed up problems with CAFOs and the need for transformative farming approaches that address long-term sustainability.
They say:
"Achieving sustainable agricultural systems will require transformative changes in markets, policy, and science."
To realize this change will involve a transition away from CAFOs and toward innovative farming practices that:
" … integrate production, environmental, and socioeconomic objectives; reflect greater awareness of ecosystem services; and capitalize on synergies between complementary farm enterprises, such as between crop and livestock production."
The paper builds on a National Research Council report released last year – Toward Sustainable Agricultural Systems in the 21st Century – that reported in 2007 the largest 2 percent of U.S. farms were responsible for 59 percent of total farm sales.
What are the Consequences of Relying on CAFOs for Food?
The trend of large corporate-controlled CAFOs making up the lion's share of U.S. food production has lead to an abundance of cheap food, but not without consequence.
As the report noted:
"Many modern agricultural practices have unintended negative consequences, or externalized costs of production, that are mostly unaccounted for in agricultural productivity measurements or by farm enterprise budgets."
This includes:
Loss of water quality through nitrogen and phosphorus contamination in rivers, streams and ground water (which contributes to "dramatic shifts in aquatic ecosystems and hypoxic zones")
Agricultural pesticide contamination to streams, ground water and wells, and safety concerns to agricultural workers who use them
A decline in nutrient density of 43 garden crops (primarily vegetables), which suggests "possible tradeoffs between yield and nutrient content)
Large emission of greenhouse gases including carbon dioxide and nitrous oxide
Negative impact on soil quality through such factors as erosion, compaction, pesticide application and excessive fertilization
Industrial agriculture also raises concerns about the welfare of farm animals and the farmers themselves. Net farm income received by farmers has remained stagnant for the last four decades, and more than 50 percent of U.S. farmers must supplement their income with additional jobs during the off-season.
A large number of these farmers are slated to retire in the next decade, which means there may be a vast shortage of farmers in the United States, and corporate agriculture could continue to reign supreme.
This is a problem for another glaring reason as well – namely that this system directly contributes to Americans' increasing reliance on processed junk foods – the very same foods that are making us fat and riddled with chronic disease. This is in large part due to the fatally flawed Farm Bill, which is slated to be renewed in 2012.
What's the Farm Bill Got to do With It?
The Farm Bill is renewed every four years. The last version was revamped in 2008, and at that time it set aside $2.3 billion to subsidize small farmers' specialty crops, which sounds promising until you hear that $290 billion was given to big business in the form of corn, soybean and cotton subsidies.
By subsidizing these, particularly corn and soy, the U.S. government is actively supporting a diet that consists of these grains in their processed form, namely high fructose corn syrup (HFCS), soybean oil, and grain-fed cattle – all of which are now well-known contributors to obesity and chronic diseases.
In a nutshell, the American agricultural system promotes and produces junk food, which is the precise opposite of what we all need in order to be healthy.
Take HFCS, for example. It's actually quite difficult to find a processed food product that does NOT include HFCS, and oftentimes it's one of the top three ingredients. With everything we now know about how HFCS and other sugars create obesity and chronic disease, is it any wonder we have a health care crisis on our hands?
The breakdown of government farm subsidies is really quite eye-opening and clearly correlates with which foods are heavily consumed in the United States:
Meat/Dairy -- 73.8 percent
Grains -- 13.2 percent
Sugar/Oil/Starch/Alcohol -- 10.7 percent
Nuts/Legumes -- 1.9 percent
Vegetables/Fruits -- 0.4 percent
Notice that less than half a percent of food subsidies is for fruits and vegetables! This is precisely why families have trouble affording green peppers, leafy greens and tomatoes, but can get a fast-food cheeseburger for a buck.
The bad news is that the foods receiving the greatest subsidies are the very foods you should avoid or limit, according to federal nutrition guidelines. It's a perfect example of saying one thing but doing another, and then blaming the ill effects on human nature.
The Science report, which is calling for a reform of the Farm Bill, further notes:
"Most elements of the Farm Bill were not designed to promote sustainability. Subsidies are commonly criticized for distorting market incentives and making our food system overly dependent on a few grain crops mainly used for animal feed and highly processed food, with deleterious effects on the environment and human health."
A Better Way to Raise Our Food
The video above is the trailer from a full-length documentary called Farmageddon...The Unseen War on American Family Farms, produced and directed by Kristin Canty. It offers an in-depth look into the escalating fight for food rights in the United States, including the right to purchase raw milk from small family farms.
The growing demand for raw milk is one sign that people are increasingly looking for fresh, whole foods that come from sustainable sources.
Partly in response to this consumer demand, researchers are now calling for both incremental and transformative approaches to make U.S. agriculture sustainable. This includes not only short-term goals like two-year crop rotations and reduced (or no) tillage but also a long-term transformative approach that:
" … builds on an understanding of agriculture as a complex socioecological system. Transformative change looks to whole-system redesign rather than single technological improvements. Examples of such innovative systems make up a modest, but growing, component of U.S. agriculture and include organic farming, alternative livestock production (e.g., grass-fed), mixed crop and livestock systems, and perennial grains.
Such systems integrate production, environmental, and socioeconomic objectives; reflect greater awareness of ecosystem services; and capitalize on synergies between complementary farm enterprises, such as between crop and livestock production."
This sounds very much like one emerging type of farming known as permaculture. The Permaculture Institute defines permaculture as an "ecological design system for sustainability in all aspects of human endeavor."
The word itself comes from "permanent agriculture" and "permanent culture," and at its foundation is developing agricultural and other systems that are interconnected and dependent on one another. In other words, they mimic the natural ecologies found in nature. The focus is not on any one element of the system, rather the focus is on the relationships between animals, plants, insects, soil, water and habitat -- and how to use these relationships to create synergistic, self-supporting ecosystems.
How to Help Support Sustainable Agriculture
If you want to optimize your health, you simply must return to the basics of healthy food choices and typically this includes buying your food from responsible, high-quality, sustainable sources.
This is why I encourage you to support the small family farms in your area. This includes not only visiting the farm directly, if you have one nearby, but also taking part in farmer's markets and community-supported agriculture programs.
Now that summer is almost here in the United States, fresh produce and other wonderful whole foods are available in abundance. Not only is the food so much tastier and healthier when you get it from sustainable, non-CAFO sources, but there is something about shopping for fresh foods in an open-air, social environment that just feels right. An artificially lit, dreary supermarket -- home to virtually every CAFO food made -- just can't compete.
If you want to experience some of these benefits first-hand, here are some great resources to obtain wholesome food that supports not only you but also the environment:
Alternative Farming Systems Information Center, Community Supported Agriculture (CSA)
Farmers' Markets -- A national listing of farmers' markets.
Local Harvest -- This Web site will help you find farmers' markets, family farms, and other sources of sustainably grown food in your area where you can buy produce, grass-fed meats, and many other goodies.
Eat Well Guide: Wholesome Food from Healthy Animals -- The Eat Well Guide is a free online directory of sustainably raised meat, poultry, dairy, and eggs from farms, stores, restaurants, inns, and hotels, and online outlets in the United States and Canada.
Community Involved in Sustaining Agriculture (CISA) -- CISA is dedicated to sustaining agriculture and promoting the products of small farms.
FoodRoutes -- The FoodRoutes “Find Good Food” map can help you connect with local farmers to find the freshest, tastiest food possible. On their interactive map, you can find a listing for local farmers, CSA's, and markets near you.
[READ THE ORIGINAL ARTICLE HERE]
Here's the article, by pollywog on My Auburn California:
Farmageddon...The Unseen War on American Family Farms, produced and directed by Kristin Canty (Google this or go to Mercola doc com to watch the video. Just search for the title of this article)
Conventional opinion is that feeding the world by 2050 will necessitate a massive, global ramp-up of industrial-scale, corporate-led agriculture. But this is not always the opinion of scientists whose work takes them out of the laboratory and into farm fields and ecosystems, such as soil experts, ecologists, and development specialists.
One recently published scientific paper urges a fundamental rethinking of the U.S. agricultural-research system, which it calls "narrowly focused on productivity and efficiency" at the expense of public health and ecological resilience. It also calls for a revamping of the Farm Bill, which it argues uses subsidies to "mask market, social, and environmental factors associated with conventional production systems."
According to Grist:
"While conventional wisdom holds that scientists who study agriculture think only lots of GMOs and agrichemicals can feed us going forward, [this research] team has quite a different set of recommendations in mind: 'organic farming, alternative livestock production (e.g., grass-fed), mixed crop and livestock systems, and perennial grains.' They are by no means the only high-level researchers to reach such conclusions."
Sources:
Grist May 11, 2011
Science May 6, 2011 (PDF)
Dr. Mercola's Comments:
From a purely financial perspective, factory farms, or Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs) make loads of economic sense. Large numbers of animals, typically 1,000 or more, are raised in a small area, fed cheap, typically grain-based, genetically modified food, and supplemented with hormones and antibiotics to maximize their growth potential in the shortest amount of time possible.
"Indulgences" like access to pasture or natural foods, sunlight and fresh air are not a part of the equation as they don't positively impact profits.
As it stands, Time magazine reported that 2 percent of U.S. livestock facilities produce 40 percent of farm animals, and these CAFOs have been highly promoted as the best way to produce food for the masses.
But thankfully a ray of hope has emerged.
New Policy Reform Paper Urges Transition to Sustainable Agriculture Systems
A very bright, forward-thinking paper from a group of researchers led by Washington State University soil scientist John P. Reganold, published in Science, has summed up problems with CAFOs and the need for transformative farming approaches that address long-term sustainability.
They say:
"Achieving sustainable agricultural systems will require transformative changes in markets, policy, and science."
To realize this change will involve a transition away from CAFOs and toward innovative farming practices that:
" … integrate production, environmental, and socioeconomic objectives; reflect greater awareness of ecosystem services; and capitalize on synergies between complementary farm enterprises, such as between crop and livestock production."
The paper builds on a National Research Council report released last year – Toward Sustainable Agricultural Systems in the 21st Century – that reported in 2007 the largest 2 percent of U.S. farms were responsible for 59 percent of total farm sales.
What are the Consequences of Relying on CAFOs for Food?
The trend of large corporate-controlled CAFOs making up the lion's share of U.S. food production has lead to an abundance of cheap food, but not without consequence.
As the report noted:
"Many modern agricultural practices have unintended negative consequences, or externalized costs of production, that are mostly unaccounted for in agricultural productivity measurements or by farm enterprise budgets."
This includes:
Loss of water quality through nitrogen and phosphorus contamination in rivers, streams and ground water (which contributes to "dramatic shifts in aquatic ecosystems and hypoxic zones")
Agricultural pesticide contamination to streams, ground water and wells, and safety concerns to agricultural workers who use them
A decline in nutrient density of 43 garden crops (primarily vegetables), which suggests "possible tradeoffs between yield and nutrient content)
Large emission of greenhouse gases including carbon dioxide and nitrous oxide
Negative impact on soil quality through such factors as erosion, compaction, pesticide application and excessive fertilization
Industrial agriculture also raises concerns about the welfare of farm animals and the farmers themselves. Net farm income received by farmers has remained stagnant for the last four decades, and more than 50 percent of U.S. farmers must supplement their income with additional jobs during the off-season.
A large number of these farmers are slated to retire in the next decade, which means there may be a vast shortage of farmers in the United States, and corporate agriculture could continue to reign supreme.
This is a problem for another glaring reason as well – namely that this system directly contributes to Americans' increasing reliance on processed junk foods – the very same foods that are making us fat and riddled with chronic disease. This is in large part due to the fatally flawed Farm Bill, which is slated to be renewed in 2012.
What's the Farm Bill Got to do With It?
The Farm Bill is renewed every four years. The last version was revamped in 2008, and at that time it set aside $2.3 billion to subsidize small farmers' specialty crops, which sounds promising until you hear that $290 billion was given to big business in the form of corn, soybean and cotton subsidies.
By subsidizing these, particularly corn and soy, the U.S. government is actively supporting a diet that consists of these grains in their processed form, namely high fructose corn syrup (HFCS), soybean oil, and grain-fed cattle – all of which are now well-known contributors to obesity and chronic diseases.
In a nutshell, the American agricultural system promotes and produces junk food, which is the precise opposite of what we all need in order to be healthy.
Take HFCS, for example. It's actually quite difficult to find a processed food product that does NOT include HFCS, and oftentimes it's one of the top three ingredients. With everything we now know about how HFCS and other sugars create obesity and chronic disease, is it any wonder we have a health care crisis on our hands?
The breakdown of government farm subsidies is really quite eye-opening and clearly correlates with which foods are heavily consumed in the United States:
Meat/Dairy -- 73.8 percent
Grains -- 13.2 percent
Sugar/Oil/Starch/Alcohol -- 10.7 percent
Nuts/Legumes -- 1.9 percent
Vegetables/Fruits -- 0.4 percent
Notice that less than half a percent of food subsidies is for fruits and vegetables! This is precisely why families have trouble affording green peppers, leafy greens and tomatoes, but can get a fast-food cheeseburger for a buck.
The bad news is that the foods receiving the greatest subsidies are the very foods you should avoid or limit, according to federal nutrition guidelines. It's a perfect example of saying one thing but doing another, and then blaming the ill effects on human nature.
The Science report, which is calling for a reform of the Farm Bill, further notes:
"Most elements of the Farm Bill were not designed to promote sustainability. Subsidies are commonly criticized for distorting market incentives and making our food system overly dependent on a few grain crops mainly used for animal feed and highly processed food, with deleterious effects on the environment and human health."
A Better Way to Raise Our Food
The video above is the trailer from a full-length documentary called Farmageddon...The Unseen War on American Family Farms, produced and directed by Kristin Canty. It offers an in-depth look into the escalating fight for food rights in the United States, including the right to purchase raw milk from small family farms.
The growing demand for raw milk is one sign that people are increasingly looking for fresh, whole foods that come from sustainable sources.
Partly in response to this consumer demand, researchers are now calling for both incremental and transformative approaches to make U.S. agriculture sustainable. This includes not only short-term goals like two-year crop rotations and reduced (or no) tillage but also a long-term transformative approach that:
" … builds on an understanding of agriculture as a complex socioecological system. Transformative change looks to whole-system redesign rather than single technological improvements. Examples of such innovative systems make up a modest, but growing, component of U.S. agriculture and include organic farming, alternative livestock production (e.g., grass-fed), mixed crop and livestock systems, and perennial grains.
Such systems integrate production, environmental, and socioeconomic objectives; reflect greater awareness of ecosystem services; and capitalize on synergies between complementary farm enterprises, such as between crop and livestock production."
This sounds very much like one emerging type of farming known as permaculture. The Permaculture Institute defines permaculture as an "ecological design system for sustainability in all aspects of human endeavor."
The word itself comes from "permanent agriculture" and "permanent culture," and at its foundation is developing agricultural and other systems that are interconnected and dependent on one another. In other words, they mimic the natural ecologies found in nature. The focus is not on any one element of the system, rather the focus is on the relationships between animals, plants, insects, soil, water and habitat -- and how to use these relationships to create synergistic, self-supporting ecosystems.
How to Help Support Sustainable Agriculture
If you want to optimize your health, you simply must return to the basics of healthy food choices and typically this includes buying your food from responsible, high-quality, sustainable sources.
This is why I encourage you to support the small family farms in your area. This includes not only visiting the farm directly, if you have one nearby, but also taking part in farmer's markets and community-supported agriculture programs.
Now that summer is almost here in the United States, fresh produce and other wonderful whole foods are available in abundance. Not only is the food so much tastier and healthier when you get it from sustainable, non-CAFO sources, but there is something about shopping for fresh foods in an open-air, social environment that just feels right. An artificially lit, dreary supermarket -- home to virtually every CAFO food made -- just can't compete.
If you want to experience some of these benefits first-hand, here are some great resources to obtain wholesome food that supports not only you but also the environment:
Alternative Farming Systems Information Center, Community Supported Agriculture (CSA)
Farmers' Markets -- A national listing of farmers' markets.
Local Harvest -- This Web site will help you find farmers' markets, family farms, and other sources of sustainably grown food in your area where you can buy produce, grass-fed meats, and many other goodies.
Eat Well Guide: Wholesome Food from Healthy Animals -- The Eat Well Guide is a free online directory of sustainably raised meat, poultry, dairy, and eggs from farms, stores, restaurants, inns, and hotels, and online outlets in the United States and Canada.
Community Involved in Sustaining Agriculture (CISA) -- CISA is dedicated to sustaining agriculture and promoting the products of small farms.
FoodRoutes -- The FoodRoutes “Find Good Food” map can help you connect with local farmers to find the freshest, tastiest food possible. On their interactive map, you can find a listing for local farmers, CSA's, and markets near you.
[READ THE ORIGINAL ARTICLE HERE]
Tuesday, May 24, 2011
Harbinger
Seriously? The U.S. Senate needed sixty votes to proceed with a bill to reduce the deficit by closing big oil tax loopholes and there were 48 Senators willing to vote against it?!? We are fighting two foreign wars, global climate change, an economic crisis, and we desperately need to curb the American appetite for petrol, but 48 U.S. Senators wanted to be sure big oil companies don't have to pay their fair share?!?
This is exactly what the founders meant when they spoke of "voting the rascals out". We should be paying more for gas because the cost is high. We should be paying more for food produced with petrochemicals and being transported long distances. We need to find a balance with nature and the planet so that it will continue to sustain us, but the U.S. Senate just decided big oil's profits are more important than you, me, and our children.
From Congress.org:
I read somewhere someone wrote this:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,--That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."
We The People need to seriously reexamine our consent!
This is exactly what the founders meant when they spoke of "voting the rascals out". We should be paying more for gas because the cost is high. We should be paying more for food produced with petrochemicals and being transported long distances. We need to find a balance with nature and the planet so that it will continue to sustain us, but the U.S. Senate just decided big oil's profits are more important than you, me, and our children.
From Congress.org:
| Motion to Proceed to the Consideration of S. 940; A bill to reduce the Federal budget deficit by closing big oil tax loopholes, and for other purposes | ||
05/17/2011 Senate Roll Call No. 72 112nd Congress, 1st Session Rejected: 52-48 (see complete tally) | ||
| By 52 yeas to 48 nays (Vote No. 72), Senate did not agree to the motion to proceed to consideration of the bill. | ||
| Vote Map: Senate Roll Call No. 72 |
| 52 |
| ||
| 48 |
|
|  |
I read somewhere someone wrote this:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,--That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."
We The People need to seriously reexamine our consent!
Tuesday, May 10, 2011
GMOs Pose New Threat
What?!? We didn't completely test genetically modified crops and take every possibility into account before approving them for mass consumption and contaminating the entire food supply?
I'm shocked.
Dr. Huber Explains Science Behind New Organism and Threat from Monsanto's Roundup, GMOs to Disease and Infertility from Food Democracy Now! on Vimeo.
I'm shocked.
Dr. Huber Explains Science Behind New Organism and Threat from Monsanto's Roundup, GMOs to Disease and Infertility from Food Democracy Now! on Vimeo.
Wednesday, April 27, 2011
USDA moves to let Monsanto perform its own environmental impact studies on GMOs
From Grist, by Tom Philpott:
Last August, Federal Judge Jeffrey White issued a stinging rebuke to the USDA for its process on approving new genetically modified seeds. He ruled that the agency's practice of "deregulating" novel seed varieties without first performing an environmental impact study violated the National Environmental Policy Act.
The target of Judge White's ire was the USDA's 2005 approval of Monsanto's Roundup Ready sugar beets, engineered to withstand doses of the company's own herbicide. White's ruling effectively revoked the approval of Monsanto's novel beet seeds pending an environmental impact study, and cast doubt upon the USDA's notoriously industry-friendly way of regulating GM seeds.
A rigorous environmental impact assessment would not likely be kind to Roundup Ready sugar beets. First, sugar-beet seeds are cultivated mainly in Oregon's Willamette Valley, also an important seed-production area for crops closely related to sugar beets, such as organic chard and table beets. The engineered beets could easily cross-pollinate with the other varieties, causing severe damage to a key resource for organic and other non-GMO farmers. Second, Monsanto's already-unregulated Roundup Ready crops -- corn, soy, and cotton -- have unleashed a plague of Roundup-resistant "superweeds," forcing farmers to apply ever-higher doses of Roundup and other weed-killing poisons. Finally, the Roundup herbicide itself is proving much less ecologically benign than advertised, as Tom Laskawy has shown.
How has the Obama USDA responded to Judge White's rebuke? By repeatedly defying it, most recently in February, when the agency moved to allow farmers to plant the engineered seeds even though the impact study has yet to be completed. Its rationale for violating the court order will raise an eyebrow of anyone who read Gary Taubes' recent New York Times Magazine piece teasing out the health hazards of the American sweet tooth: the USDA feared that the GMO sugar beet ban would cause sweetener prices to rise. Thus the USDA places the food industry's right to cheap sweetener for its junk food over the dictates of a federal court.
In early April, the USDA made what I'm reading as a second response to Judge White, this one even more craven. To satisfy the legal system's pesky demand for environmental impact studies of novel GMO crops, the USDA has settled upon a brilliant solution: let the GMO industry conduct its own environmental impact studies, or pay other researchers to. The USDA announced the program in the Federal Register for April 7, 2011 [PDF].
The biotech/agrichemical industry has applauded the new plan. Karen Batra of the Biotechnology Industry Organization told the Oregon-based ag journal Capital Press that the program will likely speed up the registration process for GMO crops and make the USDA's approach less vulnerable to legal challenges like the rebuke from Judge White. Capital Press summed up Batra's assessment of the plan like this: "The pilot program will not only help move crops through the process more quickly, but the added resources will also help the documents hold up in court."
In other words, the industry plans to produce studies that find its novel products environmentally friendly, and fully expects the USDA to accept their assessments. Judge White had ruled that the USDA should be more rigorous in assessing the risks of new GMO crops, yet his decision seems to be having the opposite effect. No doubt the USDA's latest scheme reflects the administration's stated desire to not be too "burdensome" in regulating industry.
READ THE ORIGINAL ARTICLE HERE
Last August, Federal Judge Jeffrey White issued a stinging rebuke to the USDA for its process on approving new genetically modified seeds. He ruled that the agency's practice of "deregulating" novel seed varieties without first performing an environmental impact study violated the National Environmental Policy Act.
The target of Judge White's ire was the USDA's 2005 approval of Monsanto's Roundup Ready sugar beets, engineered to withstand doses of the company's own herbicide. White's ruling effectively revoked the approval of Monsanto's novel beet seeds pending an environmental impact study, and cast doubt upon the USDA's notoriously industry-friendly way of regulating GM seeds.
A rigorous environmental impact assessment would not likely be kind to Roundup Ready sugar beets. First, sugar-beet seeds are cultivated mainly in Oregon's Willamette Valley, also an important seed-production area for crops closely related to sugar beets, such as organic chard and table beets. The engineered beets could easily cross-pollinate with the other varieties, causing severe damage to a key resource for organic and other non-GMO farmers. Second, Monsanto's already-unregulated Roundup Ready crops -- corn, soy, and cotton -- have unleashed a plague of Roundup-resistant "superweeds," forcing farmers to apply ever-higher doses of Roundup and other weed-killing poisons. Finally, the Roundup herbicide itself is proving much less ecologically benign than advertised, as Tom Laskawy has shown.
How has the Obama USDA responded to Judge White's rebuke? By repeatedly defying it, most recently in February, when the agency moved to allow farmers to plant the engineered seeds even though the impact study has yet to be completed. Its rationale for violating the court order will raise an eyebrow of anyone who read Gary Taubes' recent New York Times Magazine piece teasing out the health hazards of the American sweet tooth: the USDA feared that the GMO sugar beet ban would cause sweetener prices to rise. Thus the USDA places the food industry's right to cheap sweetener for its junk food over the dictates of a federal court.
In early April, the USDA made what I'm reading as a second response to Judge White, this one even more craven. To satisfy the legal system's pesky demand for environmental impact studies of novel GMO crops, the USDA has settled upon a brilliant solution: let the GMO industry conduct its own environmental impact studies, or pay other researchers to. The USDA announced the program in the Federal Register for April 7, 2011 [PDF].
The biotech/agrichemical industry has applauded the new plan. Karen Batra of the Biotechnology Industry Organization told the Oregon-based ag journal Capital Press that the program will likely speed up the registration process for GMO crops and make the USDA's approach less vulnerable to legal challenges like the rebuke from Judge White. Capital Press summed up Batra's assessment of the plan like this: "The pilot program will not only help move crops through the process more quickly, but the added resources will also help the documents hold up in court."
In other words, the industry plans to produce studies that find its novel products environmentally friendly, and fully expects the USDA to accept their assessments. Judge White had ruled that the USDA should be more rigorous in assessing the risks of new GMO crops, yet his decision seems to be having the opposite effect. No doubt the USDA's latest scheme reflects the administration's stated desire to not be too "burdensome" in regulating industry.
READ THE ORIGINAL ARTICLE HERE
19 Studies Link GMO Foods to Organ Disruption
A new paper demonstrates that consuming genetically modified (GM) food leads to significant organ disruptions in rats and mice. Researchers reviewed data from 19 studies and found that parameters including blood and urine biochemistry and organ weights were significantly disrupted in the GM-fed animals.
The kidneys of males were the most affected, experiencing 43.5 percent of all the changes. The livers of females followed at more than 30 percent. Other organs may have been affected too, including the heart and spleen, and blood cells.
According to the Institute for Responsible Technology:
"The GM soybean and corn varieties used in the feeding trials 'constitute 83 percent of the commercialized GMOs' that are currently consumed by billions of people. While the findings may have serious ramifications for the human population, the authors demonstrate how a multitude of GMO-related health problems could easily pass undetected through the superficial and largely incompetent safety assessments that are used around the world."
Further, the biotechnology firm Monsanto is only an FDA approval away from its latest monstrosity -- soybeans that have been genetically modified to produce omega-3 fats. That FDA approval is expected this year.
Monsanto plans to include GM soybean oil in every product it can -- baked goods, baking mixes, breakfast cereals, cheeses, frozen dairy desserts, pasta, gravies and sauces, fruit juices, snack foods, candy, soups, and more.
According to Forbes:
"Monsanto is so despised by environmentalists that Google's first suggested search term for the St. Louis company is 'Monsanto evil.' Readers ... voted Monsanto the world's most evil corporation in a January poll, giving the corporation a whopping 51 percent of the vote."
Scientists have also introduced human genes into 300 dairy cows in a process that they say will cause the cows to produce milk with the same properties as human breast milk. They believe that this could provide an alternative to formula milk for babies.
Critics of GM technology questioned the safety of milk from genetically modified animals, and also its potential effect on the cattle's health.
According to the Telegraph:
"The researchers used cloning technology to introduce human genes into the DNA of Holstein dairy cows before the genetically modified embryos were implanted into surrogate cows ... [T]he researchers said they were able to create cows that produced milk containing a human protein called lysozyme."
READ THE ORIGINAL ARTICLE HERE
Tuesday, March 22, 2011
Agents of Our Own Extinction
I have used this quote from Joel Salatin in the past:
"What happens is all these things we're seeing – campylobacter, E coli, mad cow, listeria, salmonella, that weren't even in the lexicon 30 years ago – that is the industrial paradigm exceeding its efficiency. So these Latin squiggly words that we're learning to say – bovine spongiform encephalopathy – are nature's language screaming to us: ENOUGH!.."
I came across this article by JP Sottile on FireDogLake that suggests maybe, just maybe, we're coming around:
"When we look closely at the “stuff” we have been and continue “doing”—with the atom and the genome, with plastics and poisons and chemicals of all kinds—it truly isn’t “working out real well.”
And Gaia is telling us so.
She’s been trying for decades to send us a message about our atom-splitting agenda. The letter to Fukushima is just the latest delivery. Her warning comes in the form of various cancers and landscape-altering destruction, but those flashing lights have not stopped those hungry for power, whether it be geopolitical or electric, from tampering with the basic structures of existence. The quest for “more, more, more” keeps us dancing on the edge of destruction. And while science offers tantalizing breakthroughs in unleashing the destructive, mutating forces of the atom, it offers no possibility of stuffing the genie back into the bottle. Or stuffing nuclear waste into the black hole of “safe disposal.” America solved the waste problem by turning it into profitable ammunition and shooting it all over the terrain of other nations.
Science is good at figuring out what it is we can do. It falls woefully short in determining what it is we should or shouldn’t do. Should we rely on nuclear fission? Despite the deadly evidence, we ignore Gaia’s verdict on our trials and our errors with the atom.
Then again, we also refuse to stop littering her with our petrochemical playthings.
Although we’ve gotten better at recycling plastic, it has come too late for the Pacific Ocean. Now home to a floating trash heap, the evidence of our throw-away mentality has built-up into an island of disused bottles, broken down packaging and discarded widgets. The Great Pacific Garbage Patch drifts and grows and, over time, disintegrates into smaller and smaller pieces. So much so, that a huge portion of water between Hawai’i and Japan is contaminated by a filmy plastic residue. We’ve covered the font of life—the ocean—with a toxic blanket. It is not a safety blanket. It shouldn’t keep you warm at night to know that a key link in the food chain is covered in plastic.
However, Mother Earth is not without a sense of irony.
Our ignorant use of chemicals and poisons made our water increasingly unsafe to drink. She was telling us to stop by making us sick, but we didn’t listen. Instead, we began drinking water out of plastic bottles. Those bottles are made with Bisphenol-A, a hormone-altering chemical that, among other things, affects fertility. The joke’s on us, because we are compromising our ability to reproduce by using plastic bottles to deliver the “clean water” our planet used to provide us all…free of charge. Nature keeps on telling us to stop. We don’t listen.
Not content with splitting atoms or shaping plastic, we’ve moved onto splicing genes. Blithely tampering with the basic engine of life—DNA—we cannot know the long-term consequences of our mixing and matching.
Or can we?
Because it looks like Mother Earth is killing the reproductive canary in the ecological coalmine. Monsanto’s new “Roundup Ready” alfalfa seems to show a link to animal infertility, “sudden death syndrome” in soy crops and other ominously-named diseases. Driven by a need to sustain the market for their poisonous weed killer, Monsanto simply altered the genetics of the crops it is sprayed on. They also patent any of the genes they alter, thus claiming life’s roadmap as their privatized intellectually property. They’ve even re-engineered plants to be barren, so that they will not produce seeds. The “Terminator Gene” undermines the mystical engine of life—the ability of DNA to beget more DNA. They’ve altered horticulture and, perhaps, plant biology for generations to come. The immediate outcome is that poor farmers cannot collect seeds for the next season. They must feed Monsanto’s bottom line rather than their hungry neighbors. It’s much harder to project the long-term impact of short-circuiting the essential power of living things to reproduce.
Much like the multi-generational fallout from a failing nuclear plant or an above ground test, we never fully anticipate the unexpected consequences of this adventure in playing God. But, then again, we tend not to think in terms of geological time. The collective fantasy of a 5000 year-old planet, one rooted in a divine exemption from the engine of evolution, ignores the possibility that we could be the agents of our own extinction."
[READ THE WHOLE ARTICLE HERE]
"What happens is all these things we're seeing – campylobacter, E coli, mad cow, listeria, salmonella, that weren't even in the lexicon 30 years ago – that is the industrial paradigm exceeding its efficiency. So these Latin squiggly words that we're learning to say – bovine spongiform encephalopathy – are nature's language screaming to us: ENOUGH!.."
I came across this article by JP Sottile on FireDogLake that suggests maybe, just maybe, we're coming around:
"When we look closely at the “stuff” we have been and continue “doing”—with the atom and the genome, with plastics and poisons and chemicals of all kinds—it truly isn’t “working out real well.”
And Gaia is telling us so.
She’s been trying for decades to send us a message about our atom-splitting agenda. The letter to Fukushima is just the latest delivery. Her warning comes in the form of various cancers and landscape-altering destruction, but those flashing lights have not stopped those hungry for power, whether it be geopolitical or electric, from tampering with the basic structures of existence. The quest for “more, more, more” keeps us dancing on the edge of destruction. And while science offers tantalizing breakthroughs in unleashing the destructive, mutating forces of the atom, it offers no possibility of stuffing the genie back into the bottle. Or stuffing nuclear waste into the black hole of “safe disposal.” America solved the waste problem by turning it into profitable ammunition and shooting it all over the terrain of other nations.
Science is good at figuring out what it is we can do. It falls woefully short in determining what it is we should or shouldn’t do. Should we rely on nuclear fission? Despite the deadly evidence, we ignore Gaia’s verdict on our trials and our errors with the atom.
Then again, we also refuse to stop littering her with our petrochemical playthings.
Although we’ve gotten better at recycling plastic, it has come too late for the Pacific Ocean. Now home to a floating trash heap, the evidence of our throw-away mentality has built-up into an island of disused bottles, broken down packaging and discarded widgets. The Great Pacific Garbage Patch drifts and grows and, over time, disintegrates into smaller and smaller pieces. So much so, that a huge portion of water between Hawai’i and Japan is contaminated by a filmy plastic residue. We’ve covered the font of life—the ocean—with a toxic blanket. It is not a safety blanket. It shouldn’t keep you warm at night to know that a key link in the food chain is covered in plastic.
However, Mother Earth is not without a sense of irony.
Our ignorant use of chemicals and poisons made our water increasingly unsafe to drink. She was telling us to stop by making us sick, but we didn’t listen. Instead, we began drinking water out of plastic bottles. Those bottles are made with Bisphenol-A, a hormone-altering chemical that, among other things, affects fertility. The joke’s on us, because we are compromising our ability to reproduce by using plastic bottles to deliver the “clean water” our planet used to provide us all…free of charge. Nature keeps on telling us to stop. We don’t listen.
Not content with splitting atoms or shaping plastic, we’ve moved onto splicing genes. Blithely tampering with the basic engine of life—DNA—we cannot know the long-term consequences of our mixing and matching.
Or can we?
Because it looks like Mother Earth is killing the reproductive canary in the ecological coalmine. Monsanto’s new “Roundup Ready” alfalfa seems to show a link to animal infertility, “sudden death syndrome” in soy crops and other ominously-named diseases. Driven by a need to sustain the market for their poisonous weed killer, Monsanto simply altered the genetics of the crops it is sprayed on. They also patent any of the genes they alter, thus claiming life’s roadmap as their privatized intellectually property. They’ve even re-engineered plants to be barren, so that they will not produce seeds. The “Terminator Gene” undermines the mystical engine of life—the ability of DNA to beget more DNA. They’ve altered horticulture and, perhaps, plant biology for generations to come. The immediate outcome is that poor farmers cannot collect seeds for the next season. They must feed Monsanto’s bottom line rather than their hungry neighbors. It’s much harder to project the long-term impact of short-circuiting the essential power of living things to reproduce.
Much like the multi-generational fallout from a failing nuclear plant or an above ground test, we never fully anticipate the unexpected consequences of this adventure in playing God. But, then again, we tend not to think in terms of geological time. The collective fantasy of a 5000 year-old planet, one rooted in a divine exemption from the engine of evolution, ignores the possibility that we could be the agents of our own extinction."
[READ THE WHOLE ARTICLE HERE]
Wednesday, March 9, 2011
News on GMOs
This just in...
Lawmakers urge FDA to go slow on genetically modified salmon
Rep. Don Young (R-Alaska) says that Congress cannot allow "these alien fish to infect our stocks."
...and...
Shoppers wary of genetically modified foods find they're everywhere
The Agriculture Department has approved three more genetically engineered crops in the past month, and the Food and Drug Administration could approve fast-growing genetically modified salmon for human consumption this year.
---
If you think the USDA and the FDA care about you more than money, you are not paying attention. You and I were sold out years ago. I love this quote:
"Genetically modified crops were introduced to the market in 1996. That year, engineered corn accounted for less than 5 percent of the total crop. Last year, the USDA estimated that 70 percent of the nation's corn acreage was planted with corn engineered to resist herbicides and 63 percent had been planted with insect-resistant seeds. Rates for soybeans and cotton are even higher."
We're feeding the world!
...oh, wait, no. We have poisoned people and helped make them fatter and sicker, gotten rich on their backs, created new breeds of resistant agricultural pests, and done relatively little toward feeding hungry people (unless they have money).
Hooray us!
Wait a damned minute, you say? I should not place blame?
Perhaps I am being unfair. So I leave you with this:
U.S. targeted EU on GM foods
Senior U.S. officials in Paris advised the George Bush administration to launch a military-style trade war against the European Union for resisting genetically modified foods, according to newly released WikiLeaks cables.
The then U.S. ambassador to France, Craig Stapleton, asked the government to penalize the EU and particularly countries that banned the use of genetically modified (GM) crops.
The move came in response to a 2007 French ban on a GM corn variety made by U.S.-based company Monsanto.
Other newly released cables show U.S. diplomats around the world pushed GM crops as part of U.S. global food policy.
For example, the U.S. applied pressure to the Pope's advisers to champion such crops to counter the opposition by many Catholic bishops in developing countries who were vehemently opposed to it.
Other cables show U.S. diplomats working directly for GM companies such as Monsanto joined forces with Spain to persuade the EU not to strengthen biotechnology laws.
READ IT HERE
Lawmakers urge FDA to go slow on genetically modified salmon
Rep. Don Young (R-Alaska) says that Congress cannot allow "these alien fish to infect our stocks."
...and...
Shoppers wary of genetically modified foods find they're everywhere
The Agriculture Department has approved three more genetically engineered crops in the past month, and the Food and Drug Administration could approve fast-growing genetically modified salmon for human consumption this year.
---
If you think the USDA and the FDA care about you more than money, you are not paying attention. You and I were sold out years ago. I love this quote:
"Genetically modified crops were introduced to the market in 1996. That year, engineered corn accounted for less than 5 percent of the total crop. Last year, the USDA estimated that 70 percent of the nation's corn acreage was planted with corn engineered to resist herbicides and 63 percent had been planted with insect-resistant seeds. Rates for soybeans and cotton are even higher."
We're feeding the world!
...oh, wait, no. We have poisoned people and helped make them fatter and sicker, gotten rich on their backs, created new breeds of resistant agricultural pests, and done relatively little toward feeding hungry people (unless they have money).
Hooray us!
Wait a damned minute, you say? I should not place blame?
Perhaps I am being unfair. So I leave you with this:
U.S. targeted EU on GM foods
Senior U.S. officials in Paris advised the George Bush administration to launch a military-style trade war against the European Union for resisting genetically modified foods, according to newly released WikiLeaks cables.
The then U.S. ambassador to France, Craig Stapleton, asked the government to penalize the EU and particularly countries that banned the use of genetically modified (GM) crops.
The move came in response to a 2007 French ban on a GM corn variety made by U.S.-based company Monsanto.
Other newly released cables show U.S. diplomats around the world pushed GM crops as part of U.S. global food policy.
For example, the U.S. applied pressure to the Pope's advisers to champion such crops to counter the opposition by many Catholic bishops in developing countries who were vehemently opposed to it.
Other cables show U.S. diplomats working directly for GM companies such as Monsanto joined forces with Spain to persuade the EU not to strengthen biotechnology laws.
READ IT HERE
Thursday, February 17, 2011
Genetically engineered alfalfa isn't necessary
Genetically engineered alfalfa isn't necessary
By Barbara Damrosch
Thursday, February 17, 2011
Alfalfa's roots go deep in the soil and deep in history. Prized by the ancient Persians, this high-protein "Queen of Forages" is still treasured. It is the fourth-largest crop grown in the United States, primarily for feeding cattle. And it is the latest one to fall to the Empire of Monsanto.
Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack's recent decision to deregulate the use of Monsanto's Roundup Ready Alfalfa (RRA) has alarmed many in the farming community, and beyond, who expected better from this administration. I suppose the kindest thing you could say about this genetically engineered seed - developed to allow the plant to withstand applications of Roundup herbicide - is that it's unnecessary.
Alfalfa competes well with weeds in a well-managed system. But when RRA is grown, weeds will develop resistance to Roundup, as they have with the other crops that carry the Roundup Ready gene, such as corn, soybeans and cottons (sugar beets are next). This resistance could lead to the introduction of yet more powerful transgenic remedies that, in turn, would fail.
Polling has shown that most Americans dislike the idea of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) being introduced into the food supply, which is why the agricultural lobby blocks the labeling of products containing them. And no one fears the galloping GMO trend more than farmers - organic or otherwise - who bank on selling GMO-free alfalfa hay, or meat from animals not tainted by eating RRA.
Many farmers now grow or source seed abroad to avoid cross-pollination from Monsanto crops. In seed production, alfalfa is pollinated by far-ranging bees, which makes it especially vulnerable to such biological trespass.
It is possible that, in time, forces will prevail that are not motivated by profit, and will rethink the whole GMO approach to food. It may become clear that none of it works very well, that it presents more problems than it purports to solve, and that agricultural science might be put to better use.
But here's the main point about GMOs: You can't recall them the way you can a car or a plastic toy. They're out there for good. And no one knows what their full impact will be.
I recently came across a little book called "DDT - Killer of Killers," written in 1946 by two chemical engineering professors named O.T. Zimmerman and Irvin Lavine. It's easy to poke fun at the pictures of housewives spraying DDT all over their kitchens, and at the authors' giddy assurances of that poison's worth, lacking any knowledge of its unintended consequences.
We'd like to think we've learned how to correct such mistakes, and we have. Faced with pollution, we've cleaned up much of America's air and water. But a new kind of pollution is being forced on us with no widespread agreement on its efficacy or consensus on its safety. Twenty years ago it wasn't there; now it affects the majority of food produced in this country, without our consent. We've said "No," but is anybody listening?
[READ THE ORIGINAL ARTICLE]
By Barbara Damrosch
Thursday, February 17, 2011
Alfalfa's roots go deep in the soil and deep in history. Prized by the ancient Persians, this high-protein "Queen of Forages" is still treasured. It is the fourth-largest crop grown in the United States, primarily for feeding cattle. And it is the latest one to fall to the Empire of Monsanto.
Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack's recent decision to deregulate the use of Monsanto's Roundup Ready Alfalfa (RRA) has alarmed many in the farming community, and beyond, who expected better from this administration. I suppose the kindest thing you could say about this genetically engineered seed - developed to allow the plant to withstand applications of Roundup herbicide - is that it's unnecessary.
Alfalfa competes well with weeds in a well-managed system. But when RRA is grown, weeds will develop resistance to Roundup, as they have with the other crops that carry the Roundup Ready gene, such as corn, soybeans and cottons (sugar beets are next). This resistance could lead to the introduction of yet more powerful transgenic remedies that, in turn, would fail.
Polling has shown that most Americans dislike the idea of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) being introduced into the food supply, which is why the agricultural lobby blocks the labeling of products containing them. And no one fears the galloping GMO trend more than farmers - organic or otherwise - who bank on selling GMO-free alfalfa hay, or meat from animals not tainted by eating RRA.
Many farmers now grow or source seed abroad to avoid cross-pollination from Monsanto crops. In seed production, alfalfa is pollinated by far-ranging bees, which makes it especially vulnerable to such biological trespass.
It is possible that, in time, forces will prevail that are not motivated by profit, and will rethink the whole GMO approach to food. It may become clear that none of it works very well, that it presents more problems than it purports to solve, and that agricultural science might be put to better use.
But here's the main point about GMOs: You can't recall them the way you can a car or a plastic toy. They're out there for good. And no one knows what their full impact will be.
I recently came across a little book called "DDT - Killer of Killers," written in 1946 by two chemical engineering professors named O.T. Zimmerman and Irvin Lavine. It's easy to poke fun at the pictures of housewives spraying DDT all over their kitchens, and at the authors' giddy assurances of that poison's worth, lacking any knowledge of its unintended consequences.
We'd like to think we've learned how to correct such mistakes, and we have. Faced with pollution, we've cleaned up much of America's air and water. But a new kind of pollution is being forced on us with no widespread agreement on its efficacy or consensus on its safety. Twenty years ago it wasn't there; now it affects the majority of food produced in this country, without our consent. We've said "No," but is anybody listening?
[READ THE ORIGINAL ARTICLE]
Monday, February 7, 2011
Dear Mr. President
The White House just posted this on facebook:
"Advise the Advisor is a new program to help senior staff at the White House stay connected to the American people. Think of this as your direct line to the senior staff at the White House. Visit http://wh.gov/Advise to give us your advice, feedback and opinions about key issues."
Here is my message to the senior staff:
I feel the approval of GMO alfalfa and beets has the potential of destroying the organic farming community and contaminating the food supply irrevocably.
It seems obvious at this point that this administration is more interested in big business than in the average American.
In 2008 I voted for change, hoping that corporations like Monsanto and DuPont might be kicked out of the food industry. Instead I feel that I was sold out.
"Advise the Advisor is a new program to help senior staff at the White House stay connected to the American people. Think of this as your direct line to the senior staff at the White House. Visit http://wh.gov/Advise to give us your advice, feedback and opinions about key issues."
Here is my message to the senior staff:
I feel the approval of GMO alfalfa and beets has the potential of destroying the organic farming community and contaminating the food supply irrevocably.
It seems obvious at this point that this administration is more interested in big business than in the average American.
In 2008 I voted for change, hoping that corporations like Monsanto and DuPont might be kicked out of the food industry. Instead I feel that I was sold out.
First Alfalfa, Now Beets
As if this bit of bad news was not enough:
"Experts: Contamination from GM alfalfa certain
Contamination of organic and traditional crops by recently deregulated, genetically modified alfalfa is inevitable, agriculture experts said, despite Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack's recent assurances the federal government would take steps to prevent such a problem.
By MICHAEL J. CRUMB
Associated Press Writer
DES MOINES, Iowa —
Contamination of organic and traditional crops by recently deregulated, genetically modified alfalfa is inevitable, agriculture experts said, despite Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack's recent assurances the federal government would take steps to prevent such a problem.
...
"Opponents, many of them organic farmers, say widespread planting of genetically modified alfalfa will result in pollen from those plants contaminating organic and traditional crops, destroying their value. While alfalfa is mostly used as hay for cattle, some consumers don't want to eat foods, such as milk or beef, from animals that have consumed genetically modified plants.
...
"In announcing the agency's decision, Vilsack said steps would be taken to ensure genetically modified alfalfa wouldn't cross-pollinate with organic and unmodified crops. USDA officials declined to answer questions about what those steps would entail, pointing to a document posted on the agency's website.
The text of Vilsack's announcement says the agency plans include expanding a program in Washington state to produce more unmodified alfalfa seed and maintain a pure supply.
It also says crop geneticists have been told to identify ways to protect unmodified alfalfa from genetically engineered varieties, like they are doing for corn. And, Vilsack has proposed research to improve detection of modified genes in alfalfa and hay. He also promised $1 million for research on the flow of pollen to better determine how big buffer zones between modified and unmodified fields must be to prevent contamination.
None of that will be enough to prevent contamination, said Jeff Wolt, an agronomist with Iowa State University's Seed Science Center.
'Some degree of cross-pollination will occur regardless of what mechanism is going to be put in place,' he predicted."
[READ THE WHOLE ARTICLE HERE]
Then this news comes along:
Friday, the USDA quietly announced deregulation of Monsanto’s GMO sugarbeets
"The US Department of Agriculture continues its unprecedented give-away to big agriculture monster Monsanto and its Genetically Modified (GMO) seeds. On Friday, while the media was preoccupied with the Superbowl and Egypt’s rioting, the USDA quietly announced it was deregulating Monsanto’s GMO sugar beets – despite a court order.
This move comes just a week after the agency had gone back on its own plan to regulate GMO alfalfa to at least attempt to keep it from contaminating organic farms. Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack had been floating a plan to limit the area where the GMO crop could be planted, but caved to a storm of pressure from industry, Congressional Republicans (and Monsanto pals like Montana Democrat Max Baucus), and the Obama White House."
The article includes this timeline:
* 2005 – the USDA allows the planting of GMO sugar beets. As the Wall Street Journal notes, “Until now, the USDA has always allowed the unrestricted planting of a genetically modified crop once it had passed its regulatory review, a process that largely hinges on the narrow question of whether a genetically modified crop could somehow become a plant pest” – not other issues like consumer health or impact on organic farming.
* 2008 – Various groups sue, stating that the USDA should have studied the environmental impact BEFORE releasing these genes into America’s farms, rather than after.
* August 2010 – U.S. District Judge Jeffrey S. White rules in favor of the organics groups, saying an Environmental Impact Statement must be conducted and banning planting of GMO sugar beets until the completion – which probably won’t happen before 2012
* 2010 – Farmers panic – Monsanto has so dominated the market that there aren’t enough non-GMO seeds available for them to buy and plant. They appeal to the USDA.
* 2010 – In a separate case, Monsanto argues that the USDA should be able to partially de-regulate a GMO crop (in this case, alfalfa) while it conducts its studies, and the judge agrees.
* 2011 – The USDA appeals Judge White’s ruling, which would have required currently planted seedlings to be plowed under – hearing set for February 15.
* 2011 – The USDA, in compliance with the second ruling (but not the first) says “go ahead and plant the Monsanto seeds – with a few restrictions”. (And how will that fly next week in the appeal hearing?)
* 2011 – The environmental groups, including Earth Justice and the Center for Food Safety say they’ll return to court to block this ruling, which after all, is technically in contempt of court. But with the alfalfa ruling allowing partial de-regulation, Judge White’s hands may be tied.
[READ THE ORIGINAL ARTICLE HERE]
Monsanto's friends in Washington seem to be busy. It won't be long before organic is meaningless and even buying local will be a crap shoot. Even your own home garden might have the potential of being cross-pollinated over the next few years.
Thank you to the corporate lobby and the geniuses in Washington who could not be more far removed from the source! Thank you for selling out our food and farmland!
"Experts: Contamination from GM alfalfa certain
Contamination of organic and traditional crops by recently deregulated, genetically modified alfalfa is inevitable, agriculture experts said, despite Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack's recent assurances the federal government would take steps to prevent such a problem.
By MICHAEL J. CRUMB
Associated Press Writer
DES MOINES, Iowa —
Contamination of organic and traditional crops by recently deregulated, genetically modified alfalfa is inevitable, agriculture experts said, despite Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack's recent assurances the federal government would take steps to prevent such a problem.
...
"Opponents, many of them organic farmers, say widespread planting of genetically modified alfalfa will result in pollen from those plants contaminating organic and traditional crops, destroying their value. While alfalfa is mostly used as hay for cattle, some consumers don't want to eat foods, such as milk or beef, from animals that have consumed genetically modified plants.
...
"In announcing the agency's decision, Vilsack said steps would be taken to ensure genetically modified alfalfa wouldn't cross-pollinate with organic and unmodified crops. USDA officials declined to answer questions about what those steps would entail, pointing to a document posted on the agency's website.
The text of Vilsack's announcement says the agency plans include expanding a program in Washington state to produce more unmodified alfalfa seed and maintain a pure supply.
It also says crop geneticists have been told to identify ways to protect unmodified alfalfa from genetically engineered varieties, like they are doing for corn. And, Vilsack has proposed research to improve detection of modified genes in alfalfa and hay. He also promised $1 million for research on the flow of pollen to better determine how big buffer zones between modified and unmodified fields must be to prevent contamination.
None of that will be enough to prevent contamination, said Jeff Wolt, an agronomist with Iowa State University's Seed Science Center.
'Some degree of cross-pollination will occur regardless of what mechanism is going to be put in place,' he predicted."
[READ THE WHOLE ARTICLE HERE]
Then this news comes along:
Friday, the USDA quietly announced deregulation of Monsanto’s GMO sugarbeets
"The US Department of Agriculture continues its unprecedented give-away to big agriculture monster Monsanto and its Genetically Modified (GMO) seeds. On Friday, while the media was preoccupied with the Superbowl and Egypt’s rioting, the USDA quietly announced it was deregulating Monsanto’s GMO sugar beets – despite a court order.
This move comes just a week after the agency had gone back on its own plan to regulate GMO alfalfa to at least attempt to keep it from contaminating organic farms. Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack had been floating a plan to limit the area where the GMO crop could be planted, but caved to a storm of pressure from industry, Congressional Republicans (and Monsanto pals like Montana Democrat Max Baucus), and the Obama White House."
The article includes this timeline:
* 2005 – the USDA allows the planting of GMO sugar beets. As the Wall Street Journal notes, “Until now, the USDA has always allowed the unrestricted planting of a genetically modified crop once it had passed its regulatory review, a process that largely hinges on the narrow question of whether a genetically modified crop could somehow become a plant pest” – not other issues like consumer health or impact on organic farming.
* 2008 – Various groups sue, stating that the USDA should have studied the environmental impact BEFORE releasing these genes into America’s farms, rather than after.
* August 2010 – U.S. District Judge Jeffrey S. White rules in favor of the organics groups, saying an Environmental Impact Statement must be conducted and banning planting of GMO sugar beets until the completion – which probably won’t happen before 2012
* 2010 – Farmers panic – Monsanto has so dominated the market that there aren’t enough non-GMO seeds available for them to buy and plant. They appeal to the USDA.
* 2010 – In a separate case, Monsanto argues that the USDA should be able to partially de-regulate a GMO crop (in this case, alfalfa) while it conducts its studies, and the judge agrees.
* 2011 – The USDA appeals Judge White’s ruling, which would have required currently planted seedlings to be plowed under – hearing set for February 15.
* 2011 – The USDA, in compliance with the second ruling (but not the first) says “go ahead and plant the Monsanto seeds – with a few restrictions”. (And how will that fly next week in the appeal hearing?)
* 2011 – The environmental groups, including Earth Justice and the Center for Food Safety say they’ll return to court to block this ruling, which after all, is technically in contempt of court. But with the alfalfa ruling allowing partial de-regulation, Judge White’s hands may be tied.
[READ THE ORIGINAL ARTICLE HERE]
Monsanto's friends in Washington seem to be busy. It won't be long before organic is meaningless and even buying local will be a crap shoot. Even your own home garden might have the potential of being cross-pollinated over the next few years.
Thank you to the corporate lobby and the geniuses in Washington who could not be more far removed from the source! Thank you for selling out our food and farmland!
GMOs In Kenya
Whenever I walk through Costco I wonder, "What is the issue with feeding the world exactly?"
Thursday, February 3, 2011
Organics Supporting GMOs or No?
Last week the news hit that Obama and Vilsack were giving the green light to Monsanto's genetically modified alfalfa which will in turn be used for cattle feed. That means the beef and dairy industries will have a difficult time keeping their products organic.
Some articles said, "A self-appointed cabal of the Organic Elite, spearheaded by Whole Foods Market, Organic Valley, and Stonyfield Farm, has decided it's time to surrender to Monsanto."
There was even a quote from Whole Foods: "The policy set for GE alfalfa will most likely guide policies for other GE crops as well. True coexistence is a must." (Whole Foods Market, Jan. 21, 2011)
Now Organic Valley has released a statement that includes this: "We stand united in opposition to the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) decision to once again allow unlimited, nationwide commercial planting of Monsanto's genetically engineered (GE) Roundup Ready alfalfa, despite the many risks to organic and conventional farmers."
Either Organic Valley is playing both sides of this issue or someone is flat out lying.
Regardless, with all of the opposition to GMOs, why would Obama and Vilsack agree to let Monsanto do this? Understand, once the genetically modified alfalfa is out, it's going to be next to impossible to put the genie back in that bottle. Monsanto is an agribusiness giant and I'm guessing that they just have a lot of money to get this passed.
What a sad state of affairs that our government will bow to corporations despite the will of the people.
This is absolutely contrary to what the Founding Fathers had in mind.
Some articles said, "A self-appointed cabal of the Organic Elite, spearheaded by Whole Foods Market, Organic Valley, and Stonyfield Farm, has decided it's time to surrender to Monsanto."
There was even a quote from Whole Foods: "The policy set for GE alfalfa will most likely guide policies for other GE crops as well. True coexistence is a must." (Whole Foods Market, Jan. 21, 2011)
Now Organic Valley has released a statement that includes this: "We stand united in opposition to the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) decision to once again allow unlimited, nationwide commercial planting of Monsanto's genetically engineered (GE) Roundup Ready alfalfa, despite the many risks to organic and conventional farmers."
Either Organic Valley is playing both sides of this issue or someone is flat out lying.
Regardless, with all of the opposition to GMOs, why would Obama and Vilsack agree to let Monsanto do this? Understand, once the genetically modified alfalfa is out, it's going to be next to impossible to put the genie back in that bottle. Monsanto is an agribusiness giant and I'm guessing that they just have a lot of money to get this passed.
What a sad state of affairs that our government will bow to corporations despite the will of the people.
This is absolutely contrary to what the Founding Fathers had in mind.
Wednesday, January 19, 2011
Partisan Puzzle part II
"If everyone has access to affordable healthcare, doctors won't get paid, quality will go down, and healthcare will become substandard."
Okay.
But...
"If everyone has access to affordable food, farmers will thrive, quality will go up, and people will be healthier."
I would bet neither of these statements is completely true, yet there are those who buy into rhetoric.
Let's assume big business doesn't care about you or me and only cares about the bottom line.
Think about how insurance companies and companies like Monsanto and DuPont work.
Now let's discuss the statements above.
Okay.
But...
"If everyone has access to affordable food, farmers will thrive, quality will go up, and people will be healthier."
I would bet neither of these statements is completely true, yet there are those who buy into rhetoric.
Let's assume big business doesn't care about you or me and only cares about the bottom line.
Think about how insurance companies and companies like Monsanto and DuPont work.
Now let's discuss the statements above.
Tuesday, January 18, 2011
Sustainable Agriculture & GMOs
Yesterday I came across this article on Justmeans. While the article is pretty basic in it's overview, the comment that followed it seemed to missed the point. The way it was written made it difficult to fully understand, but it compelled me to respond with this:
No one wants to discuss the the real debate here. It is a question of how many people can live off the land sustainably, how to proceed, and what are the consequences?
If we live in harmony with nature and use a sustainable form of agriculture, can we feed everyone? The answer is: No -- not the way we've been doing it. We, as a species, would need to stop mono-cropping and chemically treating our crops and completely shift gears into a bio-diverse, land nurturing agriculture model. Can that feed the world? We don't know for sure, but we can do some math and speculate.
If we continue on the path we are on we will need to continue to create newer technologies to keep up. In our current system GM crops are already failing, creating more resistant enemies to less nutritious food. We are already behind the ball just in keeping up with what we have created. That's great news for the corporate interest who hopes to bring out the next agricultural miracle, but it's already a nightmare for farmers and food-eaters the world over. Can we sustain this?
If we continue, the rich will continue to eat well for a while (by well, of course, I mean have health issues but not be hungry) and the poor will continue to struggle. Eventually, though, we will reach a point when either the land or the technology can't keep everyone fed and healthy, and the population will have to balance by attrition.
Looking back throughout history, the U.S. is really good at temporary solutions and saving problems for later generations, so it's no wonder this debate rages on.
The big picture is: do we hold on to the current model until starvation and disease become an epic problem, or do we move to a sustainable model and find a balance over time?
No one wants to discuss the the real debate here. It is a question of how many people can live off the land sustainably, how to proceed, and what are the consequences?
If we live in harmony with nature and use a sustainable form of agriculture, can we feed everyone? The answer is: No -- not the way we've been doing it. We, as a species, would need to stop mono-cropping and chemically treating our crops and completely shift gears into a bio-diverse, land nurturing agriculture model. Can that feed the world? We don't know for sure, but we can do some math and speculate.
If we continue on the path we are on we will need to continue to create newer technologies to keep up. In our current system GM crops are already failing, creating more resistant enemies to less nutritious food. We are already behind the ball just in keeping up with what we have created. That's great news for the corporate interest who hopes to bring out the next agricultural miracle, but it's already a nightmare for farmers and food-eaters the world over. Can we sustain this?
If we continue, the rich will continue to eat well for a while (by well, of course, I mean have health issues but not be hungry) and the poor will continue to struggle. Eventually, though, we will reach a point when either the land or the technology can't keep everyone fed and healthy, and the population will have to balance by attrition.
Looking back throughout history, the U.S. is really good at temporary solutions and saving problems for later generations, so it's no wonder this debate rages on.
The big picture is: do we hold on to the current model until starvation and disease become an epic problem, or do we move to a sustainable model and find a balance over time?
Monday, January 17, 2011
"Genetically modified crops no good at all"
From Sunday Vision. I think it's good to understand that this is an international viewpoint...
THE debate about genetically modified crops (GMOs) continues, but if Dr. Charles Mugoya’s article “Uganda is ready for genetically modified foods” is to be believed, then we have already lost the battle.
This is corroborated by a recent press report citing Monsanto among ‘partners’ to boost agricultural productivity in East Africa. Just like the debate on mosquitoes and DDT, I still find it strange that a scientific fact is subjected to ‘social’ debate.
The intentions of Monsanto are known. Yet we seem to have our priorities elsewhere. If the rumour mill of the ‘campaign billions’ is a measure to go by, then we do truly have our priorities upside down.
Time, energy, money, brains are spent on sentimental issues like the seniority, ‘juniority’ or mediocrity of a cultural leader, while our enslavers are slowly incapacitating the only form of independence we had left: a peasant’s capacity to feed himself. And the next day we globe-trot with a begging bowl in hand!
Like MPs and others, our scientists live in our times: with families and children that need to go with the times. They, therefore, have to lean where the buttered side of the bread is stacked. This explains Mugoya’s shameless arguments. It is not his inner persona nor his scientific knowledge talking. It is is his stomach: very human!
If Parliament can be recalled from recess, public hearings organised to debate who is or is not a cultural leader is, WHY NOT DO THE SAME TO DEBATE THIS THREATENING MONSTER MONSANTO? (mark the pun!). Or is Parliament itself already compromised?
Remember ‘The Confessions of an Economic Hitman’? It is such that make those who argue for the actual takeover of the real powers more relevant than our pretensions to sovereignty!
Amon Mbekiza
Kampala
Published on: Saturday, 15th January, 2011
SEE THE ORIGINAL ARTICLE
THE debate about genetically modified crops (GMOs) continues, but if Dr. Charles Mugoya’s article “Uganda is ready for genetically modified foods” is to be believed, then we have already lost the battle.
This is corroborated by a recent press report citing Monsanto among ‘partners’ to boost agricultural productivity in East Africa. Just like the debate on mosquitoes and DDT, I still find it strange that a scientific fact is subjected to ‘social’ debate.
The intentions of Monsanto are known. Yet we seem to have our priorities elsewhere. If the rumour mill of the ‘campaign billions’ is a measure to go by, then we do truly have our priorities upside down.
Time, energy, money, brains are spent on sentimental issues like the seniority, ‘juniority’ or mediocrity of a cultural leader, while our enslavers are slowly incapacitating the only form of independence we had left: a peasant’s capacity to feed himself. And the next day we globe-trot with a begging bowl in hand!
Like MPs and others, our scientists live in our times: with families and children that need to go with the times. They, therefore, have to lean where the buttered side of the bread is stacked. This explains Mugoya’s shameless arguments. It is not his inner persona nor his scientific knowledge talking. It is is his stomach: very human!
If Parliament can be recalled from recess, public hearings organised to debate who is or is not a cultural leader is, WHY NOT DO THE SAME TO DEBATE THIS THREATENING MONSTER MONSANTO? (mark the pun!). Or is Parliament itself already compromised?
Remember ‘The Confessions of an Economic Hitman’? It is such that make those who argue for the actual takeover of the real powers more relevant than our pretensions to sovereignty!
Amon Mbekiza
Kampala
Published on: Saturday, 15th January, 2011
SEE THE ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)