Two Things

   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!


 

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]

Monsanto Under Federal Investigation For Cash Incentives Program

Monsanto Under Federal Investigation For Cash Incentives Program
by Lucia Graves
First Posted: 06/30/11 11:58 AM ET Updated: 06/30/11 02:07 PM ET

WASHINGTON -- Global agribusiness giant Monsanto is under federal investigation for using cash incentives to persuade distributors to use Roundup, the world's top-selling weedkiller.

Monsanto announced Wednesday the company would cooperate with the Securities and Exchange Commission's probe of its "customer incentives" programs and a subpoena for documents pertaining to the sale of Monsanto's glyphosate products in fiscal years 2009 and 2010.

The US-based company has allegedly been offering distributors up to $20 per acre to use Roundup, as well as Roundup Ready seeds, which have been genetically modified to resist the glyphosate-based herbicide.

The announcement came as the agricultural biotechnology giant reported a 77 percent jump in net income, an increase attributed mostly to the strength of its core seeds and genetic traits businesses.

"We made significant changes to our business this year, and those changes resonated with our customers," said Hugh Grant, Monsanto's president and chief executive officer, in a statement. "We earned their business and achieved what we set out to achieve: unit volume growth in our core crops, a successful implementation of our agricultural productivity strategy and sustained cost-discipline across our operations. That positions us well for the coming years and the mid-teens earnings growth opportunity we see for this company."

Net income attributable to Monsanto Company for the third quarter, which ended on May 31, rose to $680 million at $1.26 per share, from $384 at 70 cents per share a year earlier.

The agribusiness giant also raised its full-year ongoing earnings guidance to $2.84 to $2.88 per share, from $2.72 to $2.82 per share

Net sales increased 21 percent, to $3.59 billion, up from $2.96 billion in 2010.

When questioned about the SEC's probe on a Wednesday conference call with reporters, Grant declined to comment in detail, but he assured reporters Monsanto was taking the investigation seriously.

“Out of respect for the SEC and their processes, there’s really not a great deal I can say at the moment,” said Grant, according to a report by the Associated Press. "It's focused on (Roundup) and it's focused on our customer incentives and it's focused on the 2009-2010 time frame, and we are - it's early days, but we are, we're just starting document production and we are cooperating to our full ability."

Monsanto is also currently being investigated by the U.S. Department of Justice for a possible violation of anti-trust laws regarding its dominance of the genetically-engineered seed industry.

[READ THE ORIGINAL ARTICLE HERE]

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]

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:

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

On the Motion to Proceed 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

Votes For :	52
Votes Against :	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!

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.

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

19 Studies Link GMO Foods to Organ Disruption

   From Foodconsumer.org, by Dr. Joseph Mercola:

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

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]

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!

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.

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.

"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

2010: the year of food politics

   From High Country News, an article by Ari LeVaux.

   Being from Oregon, the last two paragraphs really caught my attention...

2010 was quite a year in food, among other things. Some will honor it as the year homemade sausage finally came of age, or the year the school-garden movement exploded. Others will remember 2010 as the year KFC's Double Down sandwich made its glorious debut. Given the variety of food preferences in the country, you can hardly make an end-of-year food list to please everyone, so let's start with what a cross section of America thinks -- and eats.

A market research firm called Wakefield surveyed 1,000 Americans on what they felt was "the most significant food story of 2010." The top three stories all involved threats to food safety: the impact of the BP oil spill on seafood, the nationwide recall of eggs, and another recall of 35,000 pounds of beef after E. coli was detected at a Southern California distributor. This public perception made a food-safety bill especially timely, and after some procedural delays, Congress finally passed the bill Dec. 21. Its passage came on the heels of the landmark Child Nutrition Act, which had suffered no snags on its way to President Obama's desk.

Another important policy change occurred last February, when the U.S. Department of Agriculture modified its organic standards for beef and dairy. The new "Access to Pasture" rule, named after an infamous longstanding loophole in the organic standards, finally specified a minimum number of days per year that organic cattle must spend outdoors to qualify as organic. The requirement raises the bar most dramatically for the largest producers, forcing them to more truly live up to organic principles. For small milk and meat producers, and the consumers who are willing to pay a little extra for their product, this clarity is welcome.

In other bovine-product related developments, the USDA has apparently gotten serious about investigating the many ways that unregulated pharmaceuticals are getting into our meat and dairy. An April report by the USDA's Office of the Inspector General called out its own agency for its near total lack of oversight in recent, um, decades, and made recommendations for reform.

The Food and Drug Administration also finally released estimates in December -- for the first time ever -- of total antibiotic use in the nation's livestock industry. In 2009, that figure was 29 million pounds, most of it for non-therapeutic use such as spurring weight gain in animals. This is partly why there's an epidemic of antibiotic-resistant staph, or MRSA, in feedlots. The report expresses FDA's newfound intention to curb antibiotic use in agriculture.

Amid this climate of agency self-examination, my pick for the sleeper story of the year was broken by Colorado beekeeper Tom Theobald. Concerned about an abnormal 40 percent annual loss in his colonies, he began to suspect an agricultural chemical called clothianidin that was used in area cornfields. The Bayer-patented neurotoxin has been used in seed coatings since 2003, though Bayer's permission to market it was granted conditionally, dependent on the submission of evidence that it was safe for bees.

Theobald tracked down a lengthy correspondence between Bayer and the Environmental Protection Agency, in which Bayer repeatedly stalled and the EPA granted numerous extensions until Bayer finally conducted a study. That study was never released, and lay buried for years until Theobald, who was just trying to figure out what happened to his bees, finally found it online. The study, it turns out, was done in Canada (against agency rules) and was conducted so poorly that the results could not be considered conclusive, or even indicative, that clothianidin used on corn is safe for local bees.

Theobald wrote about this saga in Bee Culture in July of this year, and soon afterward received a phone call from the EPA saying his article had led to an internal investigation. That inquiry lead to a Nov. 2 memo in which the agency acknowledged the tragedy of errors that led to the permitted use of clothianidin, and admitted that scientists inside the EPA expressed concerns regarding bees as early as 2003,  partly because a similar pesticide had recently caused bee die-offs in Europe.

Perhaps beekeepers could borrow from the playbook of the Center for Food Safety, which has used the National Environmental Policy Act to stop the planting of genetically modified crops in places where they endanger the livelihoods of local farmers. In one case, Monsanto appealed its way to the Supreme Court, each time losing to the argument that selling its experimental genetically modified alfalfa before the completion of an environmental impact study would endanger the rights of farmers to grow non-genetically modified alfalfa. In June, the Supreme Court demanded more USDA oversight and said that an environmental impact statement would have to be completed before the alfalfa could be commercialized.

Then this December, a federal judge ordered Monsanto's sugar beet division to destroy 258 acres of genetically modified sugar beets that were intended to produce seeds for 2012. Currently, 95 percent of the nation's sugar beets are grown from Monsanto's Roundup Ready seeds, popular because they save farmers the expense and hassle of spraying chemicals on the crop. Monsanto produces its sugar beet seeds on several properties in Oregon's Willamette valley, where the risk of wind-borne gene contamination is great. In his decision, Judge Jeffrey White ruled that Monsanto was endangering neighboring farmers who grow non-genetically modified seed.

On Dec. 21, however, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ordered another hearing to decide whether the genetically modified seeds should be destroyed. All victories, it seems, may be temporary.

READ THE ARTICLE

GMOs in the News

   From Greenpeace International:

Documents exposed recently by Wikileaks reveal that the US has been putting pressure on European countries to accept genetically engineered  (GE) crops. Although US government support for biotech companies in this way is nothing new - the cables released by Wikileaks reveal some interesting details on Spain’s role as a key US ally for pushing GE crops.

A story broke in EL Pais on Sunday December 19th, revealing that the Spain has been working hand in hand with the US to protect the interests of the biotech industry against those EU countries that hold national bans on GE crops. Spain, cultivates the most GE maize (Monsanto MON810) in Europe and is obviously very worried by the rise of the anti-GE movement in Spanish society. The French are also mostly against GE crops and Germany has been introducing GE crop bans - allying with countries such as Austria, Luxembourg and Italy. Spain doesn't want to be outnumbered in Europe on this issue and has been looking for support elsewhere.

The Spanish Secretary of State for Rural Affairs and Water, Joseph Puxeu, has even been asking the US government to work closely with Spain in applying pressure on the EU Commission for the encouragement of GE crops cultivation.

The documents explain why the Spanish government has been tolerating GE crops for years while failing to implement strict rules on the labelling and traceability of GE food. And they have not been transparent on the location of GE fields despite a number of contamination incidents and socio-economic impacts on farmers and the society.

The story in Spain is a scandal that has shocked environmental, consumers and farmers organisations. They are calling on the Minister of Environment, Rose Aguilar, to take immediate measures, and hold those accountable who have been working against Spanish society, the environment and public health. They are asking her to stop listening to the big biotech companies and ban Monsanto’s GE maize.

On the cable 07PARIS4723 dated 14 December 2007, Craig Stapleton, US Ambassador in Paris, addressed  the issue of GE crops and the World Trade Organisation in Europe. He stated that the EU is moving backwards on this issue and that France is playing a major role in this movement. He concludes by saying the only way to deal with France is to take retaliation measures. 'Retaliation' like this could be something like a boycott of French products or start anti-marketing campaigns.

In another cable 09MADRID482, sent from the US Embassy in Madrid, from May 2009 this time, we learn that Monsanto representatives are confident that the adoption of a safeguard clause in France, banning Monsanto’s maize, is the result of bargaining between environmentalists and Nicolas Sarkozy. They claim that Sarkozy gave in to introducing the ban by asking environmental organisations, Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth, to stop campaigning against his nuclear policy. It is almost impossible to imagine such a deal! The pro-GE lobby, so blinded by their ideology, are apparently unable to believe that the leaders of a country like France have introduced a ban based on serious scientific uncertainties around GE crops, as well as the opposition by the majority French citizens. And Greenpeace would never agree to such a deal. Our anti-nuclear campaign in France continues.

It is evident that the US and the biotech companies follow the EU debate on GE crops very closely. They seem to think that the rest of the EU will follow if Spain bans Monsanto’s GE maize (MON810). The controversial maize is under reassessment and the EU Commission will put forward a proposal for its reauthorisation, which EU Members States will need to vote on.

Will the EU Commission and the EU Member States take in to account the increasing scientific evidence highlighting the environmental impacts of GE crops? Will they consider the possible impacts on our health? Will they take into account the unanimous demand from EU Environment Ministers for strengthening of the European authorisation system for GE crops?

Will they listen to the majority of the EU public who oppose GE crops and most recently the one million EU citizens who demanded a moratorium on them in the EU?

Or will they give in to the pressure of the pro-GE lobby and the US? 

   And from Truthout:

The former United States ambassador to France suggested "moving to retaliation" against France and the European Union (EU) in late 2007 to fight a French ban on Monsanto's genetically modified (GM) corn and changes in European policy toward biotech crops, according to a cable  released by WikiLeaks on Sunday.

Former Ambassador Craig Stapleton was concerned about France's decision to suspend cultivation of Monsanto's MON-810 corn and warned that a new French environmental review standard could spread anti-biotech policy across the EU.

"Country team Paris recommends that we calibrate a target retaliation list that causes some pain across the EU since this is a collective responsibility, but that also focuses in part on the worst culprits," Stapleton wrote to diplomatic colleagues.

President George W. Bush appointed Stapleton as ambassador to France in 2005, and in 2009, Stapleton left the office and became an owner of the St. Louis Cardinals baseball team. Bush and Stapleton co-owned the Texas Rangers during the 1990s.

Monsanto is based in St. Louis.

Feed The World

   The United States imports about 20% of it's food (by volume, according to the USDA in 2008). In 2007, the U.S. exported over $11 billion in corn alone. With figures like that in mind, Timothy W. Jones' 2004 study should be pretty clear evidence that, if seed-patenting and genetically modified food corporations are truly interested in feeding the world, they need new management.

   The problem is not that there is not enough food. The problem is that we don't want to share unless there's a profit margin.

   From UA News:


Timothy W. Jones, an anthropologist at the UA Bureau of Applied Research in Anthropology, has spent the last 10 years measuring food loss, including the last eight under a grant from the U.S. Department of Agriculture. Jones started in the farms and orchards, went on through the warehouses, retail outlets and dining rooms, and to landfills.

What he found was that not only is edible food discarded that could feed people who need it, but the rate of loss, even partially corrected, could save U.S. consumers and corporations tens of billions of dollars each year. Jones says these losses also can be framed in terms of environmental degradation and national security.

Jones' research evolved from and builds on earlier work done at the University of Arizona. Archaeologists there began measuring garbage in the 1970s to see what was being thrown away and discovered that people were not fully aware of what they were using and discarding. Those earlier studies evolved into more sophisticated research using contemporary archaeology and ethnography to understand not only the path food travels from farms and orchards to landfills, but also the culture and psychology behind the process.

A certain amount of waste in the food stream simply can't be helped. Little can be done, for instance, about weather and crop deterioration. The apple industry, for instance, loses on average about 12 percent of its crop on the way to market.

Apples in the U.S. are harvested over a two-month period and then stored and sold year-round. People in the apple business use aggressive methods to maintain their crop, with fresh apples hitting the supermarkets on a regular basis and marginal ones sent to be made into applesauce and other products.

The goal of apple growers is to provide a nutritious product, all year long, at fairly constant prices. Jones says they've adopted a conservative business plan that forgoes the boom-and-bust cycles that other fruit and vegetable growers aim for and opts instead for a steady income stream.
Fresh fruit and vegetable growers, in contrast, often behave like riverboat gamblers. They will roam their fields while on their cell phones to the commodity markets in Chicago, play the odds and even dance a jig or flip a coin if they think it will help them make a financial killing. A bad bet often means an entire crop is left in the field to be plowed under.
Jones' research also shows that by measuring how much food is actually being brought into households, a clearer picture of that end of the food stream is beginning to emerge.

On average, households waste 14 percent of their food purchases. Fifteen percent of that includes products still within their expiration date but never opened. Jones estimates an average family of four currently tosses out $590 per year, just in meat, fruits, vegetables and grain products.
Jones says there are three simple ways most people can significantly reduce their own food waste. One is careful purchase planning: devise menus and make up grocery lists accordingly.

Another is knowing what lurks in the refrigerator and pantry that needs to be used while it is still useable.

And understand that many kinds of food can be refrigerated or frozen and eaten later.

Nationwide, he says, household food waste alone adds up to $43 billion, making it a serious economic problem. (In addition to farms and households, Jones also is currently researching retail food waste, again a sector where annual losses run in the tens of billions of dollars.)

Cutting food waste would also go a long way toward reducing serious environmental problems. Jones estimates that reducing food waste by half could reduce adverse environmental impacts by 25 percent through reduced landfill use, soil depletion and applications of fertilizers, pesticides and herbicides.


Go to UA News.

Arguments Against Genetically Modified Foods

From The Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations:

 The main arguments that have been put forward against the use of GMOs in agriculture include:

Potential negative effects on the environment

      Genes can end up in unexpected places: Through "gene escape" they can pass on to other members of the same species and perhaps other species. Genes introduced in GMOs are no exception, and interactions might occur at gene, cell, plant and ecosystem level. Problems could result if, for example, herbicide-resistance genes got into weeds. So far, research on this is inconclusive, with scientists divided - often bitterly. But there is scientific consensus that once widely released, recalling transgenes or foreign DNA sequences, whose safety is still subject to scientific debate, will not be feasible.

      Genes can mutate with harmful effect: It is not yet known whether artificial insertion of genes could destabilize an organism, encouraging mutations, or whether the inserted gene itself will keep stable in the plant over generations. There is no conclusive data on this issue.

      "Sleeper" genes could be accidentally switched on and active genes could become "silent": Organisms contain genes that are activated under certain conditions -- for example, under attack from pathogens or severe weather. When a new gene is inserted, a "promoter" gene is also inserted to switch it on. This could activate a "sleeper" gene in inappropriate circumstances. This is especially relevant in long-lived organisms - such as trees. Sometimes the expression of genes is even "silenced" as a result of unknown interactions with the inserted gene.

      Interaction with wild and native populations: GMOs could compete or breed with wild species. Farmed fish, in particular, may do this. GM crops could pose a threat to crop biodiversity, especially if grown in areas that are centres of origin of that crop. In addition, GM crops could compete with and substitute traditional farmers' varieties and wild relatives that have been bred, or evolved, to cope with local stresses. For example, local varieties in Latin America permitted the recovery from the catastrophic potato blight in Ireland in the 1840s. Today such plants often help improve climate tolerance and disease resistance. If genetically modified crop varieties substitute them, they could be lost, but the same applies to improved varieties developed by conventional breeding methods.

      Impact on birds, insects and soil biota: Potential risks to non-target species, such as birds, pollinators and micro-organisms, is another important issue. Nobody quite knows the impact of horizontal flow of GM pollen to bees' gut or of novel gene sequences in plants to fungi and soil and rumen bacteria. Besides, it is feared that widespread use of GM crops could lead to the development of resistance in insect populations exposed to the GM crops. Planting "refuge" areas with insect-susceptible varieties is advised to reduce the risk of insect populations evolving resistance due to the widespread growing of GMO Bt-crops.

Potential negative effects on human health

      Transfer of allergenic genes: These could be accidentally transferred to other species, causing dangerous reactions in people with allergies. For example, an allergenic Brazil-nut gene was transferred into a transgenic soybean variety. Its presence was discovered during the testing phase, however, and the soybean was not released.

      Mixing of GM products in the food chain: Unauthorized GM products have appeared in the food chain. For example, the GM maize variety Starlink, intended only for animal feed, was accidentally used in products for human consumption. Although there was no evidence that Starlink maize was dangerous to humans, strict processing controls may be required to avoid similar cases in the future.

      Transfer of antibiotic resistance: Genes that confer antibiotic resistance are inserted into GMOs as "markers" to indicate that the process of gene transfer has succeeded. Concerns have been expressed about the possibility that these "marker genes" could confer resistance to antibiotics. This approach is now being replaced with the use of marker genes that avoid medical or environmental hazards.

Potential socio-economic effects

      Loss of farmers' access to plant material: Biotechnology research is carried out predominantly by the private sector and there are concerns about market dominance in the agricultural sector by a few powerful companies. This could have a negative impact on small-scale farmers all over the world. Farmers fear that they might even have to pay for crop varieties bred from genetic material that originally came from their own fields when they buy seeds from companies holding patents on specific genetic modification "events". Some argue that the World Trade Organization's agreement on Trade-Related Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) encourages this, but there are options to protect farmers' traditional practices within that agreement. Also, the new International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture recognizes the contributions of farmers to the conservation and use of plant genetic resources over time and for future generations. It provides for an international framework to regulate access to plant genetic resources and establishes a mechanism to share the benefits derived from their use.

      Intellectual property rights could slow research: The proprietary nature of biotechnology products and processes may prevent their access for public-sector research. This might have a stronger negative impact in developing countries where no private research initiatives are in place. In addition, most developing countries still do not provide patent protection to biotechnological products and technologies. Because patents have a national scope, the entry of products developed through proprietary biotechnologies could be prevented in those external markets where patent protection exists.

      Impact of "terminator" technologies: Although these are still under development and have not yet been commercialized, they would, if applied, prevent a crop from being grown the following year from its own seed. This means that farmers could not save seeds for planting the next season. Some believe that this technology, also known as the Technology Protection System, could have the advantage of preventing out-crossing of GM seeds.

Go to The Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations' website.

Chuck Palazzo

   I dig this cat.

   From Veterans Today:

   Chuck Palazzo: "Marine Combat Veteran, served with 1st and 3rd FORCERECON. RVN 1970-1971. Currently living, writing and working in Da Nang, Vietnam. Agent Orange and Unexploded Ordinance activist and researcher."

   Chuck is paying attention to the chemical industries and is trying to get the word out.

Despite problems with superweeds, Obama and USDA firmly support GMOs

From Food Integrity Now by Matt Spaeth on October 11, 2010:


Superweeds, a side-effect of growing Roundup-Ready genetically modified (GM) crops, are a growing problem. Roundup-Ready crops, engineered to tolerate weedkiller, are the most popular variety of GM crop today. However, many native weeds have evolved their own defense to weedkiller and now occupy 10 million acres of US farmland. Despite this issue being a direct result of growing GM crops, the Obama administration and USDA recently made it clear, they firmly stand beside biotechnology.

Ann Wright, a deputy undersecretary at the USDA, told a House oversight subcommittee last week:

This administration and USDA see biotechnology as being a very important tool for farmers to use in addressing some very important issues, globally and domestically. All the options we look at have to be supportive of that.

Yes, you read that right. In finding a solution, the Obama administration and USDA will only consider options supporting the same technology that created the problem.

Wright also stated the USDA did not have authority to regulate weedkiller-tolerant crops leading to superweeds.

Congressman Dennis Kucinich, Ohio democrat and former presidential candidate, corrected her by stating the department can impose restrictions on weedkiller-tolerant crops under its authority to control noxious weeds. Kucinich advocates creating a moratorium on genetically modified organisms and is holding a series of hearings on the superweed issue.

The USDA statement came amidst reports that Monsanto’s shares are down 42% and on the eve of the first official Non-GMO month.

Monsanto, the creators of Roundup (a weedkiller also known as glyphosate), is the world’s largest supplier of genetically modified seeds. They alter the DNA of crops to resist weedkiller, then sell both the seed and weedkiller to the farmer. It is supposed to make a farmer’s life easier, as it allows an entire field to be blanketed with weedkiller. The GM crops survive, and the weeds die. It was touted to be more environmentally friendly than the old method of tilling weeds under. But as the years went on, the weeds around the crops grew resistant to weedkiller as well, erasing the benefits of the GM crop.

This news reinforces President Obama’s appearance as a politician determined to facilitate biotech world domination. Since winning the presidency, he has made it his mission to fill his administration with a team of biotech all-stars:

December 17, 2008, then-President-elect Barack Obama nominated Tom Vilsack, a politician well-known for his preference of large industrial farms and genetically modified crops, as US Secretary of Agriculture. Vilsack originated legislation prohibiting local communities from regulating where GM crops could be grown. He was also the founder and former chair of the Governor’s Biotechnology Partnership, and was named Governor of the Year by the Biotechnology Industry Organization.

July 7, 2009, President Obama appointed Michael Taylor, Monsanto-man and poster boy for revolving door politics, as “senior advisor” to the FDA Commissioner. Taylor began his career as staff attorney for the FDA before moving to a law firm representing Monsanto. He later returned to the FDA as Deputy Commissioner for Policy, where he lead the approval for using Monsanto’s rBGH growth hormone in dairy cows without labeling. From there he moved to the USDA as Administrator of the Food Safety & Inspection Service, before becoming Monsanto’s Vice President for Public Policy.

September 24, 2009, President Obama appointed Roger Beachy, “the father of GM foods”, as Director of the National Institute of Food and Agriculture (NIFA). Beachy was the founding president of the Danforth Plant and Science Center, a non-profit arm of Monsanto, where he is still a trustee and member of its scientific advisory board. A part of the USDA, NIFA was developed as a result of a task force chaired by William H. Danforth and appointed by then Secretary of Agriculture, Ann Veneman. Veneman herself has a history in biotech, having served on the board of directors for Calgene Inc, a biotech company later purchased by Monsanto.

November 10, 2009, President Obama nominated Rajiv Shah, GMO and vaccine proponent, as Administrator of the US Agency for International Development (USAID). Before this, Shah was Chief Scientist at the USDA (also appointed by Obama), where he worked on launching NIFA. Shah used his USDA position to promote genetic engineering to Congress and direct millions towards GMO research. Prior to his involvement in government, Shah was the agricultural programs director for the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, along with the Danforth Plant and Science Center, is one of Monsanto’s key non-profit partners.

January 13, 2010, President Obama re-appoints Michael Taylor, this time to Deputy Commissioner of Foods for the FDA.

April 2, 2010, President Obama appointed Islam A. Siddiqui, a registered biotech lobbyist, as Chief Agricultural Negotiator in the Office of the United States Trade Representative. Siddiqui is a former VP for Science and Regulatory Affairs at CropLife America, a biotechnology industry consortium. His credentials include lobbying against mandatory labeling of GMO foods in Japan and criticizing the European Union’s precautionary rejection of importing GMOs. Siddiqui is the former Under Secretary for Marketing and Regulatory Programs at the USDA, where he oversaw the National Organic Program’s standards. These standards initially allowed both irradiated and GM foods to be labeled as organic, but were later revised due to public opposition.

It’s no wonder 86% of US farmland is planted with GM crops, a good ‘ol boys network is writing our nation’s agricultural policy!

Meanwhile, on the opposite end of the agricultural spectrum, the First Lady created an organic garden where she grows produce for the White House kitchen as well as local charities and soup kitchens. She also uses the garden to educate local elementary school children about organic gardening. In addition, the First Lady hosted diplomat spouses of world leaders at the UN General Assembly to a luncheon tour of a local NY farm specializing in seed diversity, local farming and sustainability.

You may be baffled, so am I. Is Michelle Obama just a front? Does the President really believe he is helping the world? Or, is he a puppet in the hands of wealthy campaign financiers?

Clearly, the government has ignored the growing number of studies which indicate GM food is unsafe for human or animal consumption. A paper released by The American Academy of Environmental Medicine (AAEM) shows more than a causal association between GMOs and adverse health effects.

According to the AAEM,

…several animal studies indicate serious health risks associated with GM food consumption including infertility, immune dysregulation, accelerated aging, dysregulation of genes associated with cholesterol synthesis, insulin regulation, cell signaling, and protein formation, and changes in the liver, kidney, spleen and gastrointestinal system.

Another study, lead by Professor Andrés Carrasco of the Laboratory of Molecular Embryology at the University of Buenos Aires Medical School, demonstrated that glyphosate (Roundup) causes birth defects at far lower doses than those used in agricultural spraying and well below maximum residue levels in products approved by the European Union. The study was initiated because of widespread reports of human malformations in Argentina beginning in 2002. This was two years after farmers began widespread aerial spraying of Roundup on their GM soy crops.

Even the President’s own Cancer Panel suggests reducing your risk of cancer by “giving preference to food grown without pesticides, chemical fertilizers and growth hormones.” In other words, eat organic.

We are faced with a mountain of problems linked to genetically modified organisms and they continue to build: South African farmers were devastated in 2009 when genetically modified maize from Monsanto failed to produce kernels; GM soy has been linked sterility and infant mortality in hamsters; and insecticide-producing GM corn is polluting streams, lakes and rivers. What will be next?

The biotech lobbyists have succeeded in preventing GM foods from being labeled thus far, but many are seeking for that to change. This Washington Post public poll clearly shows the public wants to know if they are eating GMOs. But, the biotech industry knows they would have no industry if that was the case. Watch for this issue this coming election and ask your candidates where they stand on GMO Food Labels.

Congressman Kucinich seems to be one of the only people in Washington taking a stand for integrity and common sense. Let’s hope he still has a job come November.

Negotiators agree on international accord on damage from GM crops

From The Mainichi Daily News:

NAGOYA (Kyodo) -- Negotiators at biological diversity talks in the central Japan city of Nagoya have agreed on a supplement to the biosafety protocol that would address compensation for damage caused to ecosystems by genetically modified crops, officials involved in the talks said Tuesday.

A group of experts is currently working out a final draft for adoption by member countries on Friday, the final day of the fifth meeting on the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety, which began Monday as the official start of three weeks of international talks on the Convention on Biological Diversity.

The "Nagoya-Kuala Lumpur Supplementary Protocol on Liability and Redress" would set new rules for allowing importing countries to call on business operators who brought in genetically modified organisms that caused damage to implement necessary restorative measures or pay for the costs of such measures.

At a working group meeting on Tuesday, participants discussed various issues faced by developing countries in ensuring biosafety, including capacity-building by countries with little know-how on the handling of living modified organisms and without relevant domestic laws.

They also discussed the importance of creating common standards to assess the environmental impact of such organisms.

Talks on compensatory measures for damage caused to ecosystems by genetically modified crops began in 2004 as the potential damage to biological diversity was unknown.

(Mainichi Japan) October 13, 2010 -- READ THE ORIGINAL ARTICLE