Genetically engineered hormones used by dairy industry promote cancer

E. Huff
Natural News
November 17, 2009

Organic, raw milk is the most preferable option as it is a whole, living food rich in beneficial enzymes, probiotics, and other nutrients that get destroyed during pasteurization and homogenization. Many believe raw milk is a perfect food rich in essential vitamins and high in protein.

Post #9

Armed with only bows and arrows to protect their land from soy crop farmers, they were quickly sprayed with aerial pesticide from planes in an effort to evict an indigenous community in Paraguay. This makes me sick!  Read the full article here.  Paraguay is the world’s #4 soybean exporter.  The problem with Paraguay is that the large landowners (and companies) are mostly foreign — and hence have no interest in the well-being of the people who actually live there.  Their soybean production causes significant damage environmentally, socially, and economically. The genetically modified soy crops are heavily sprayed with fertilizers and pesticides which wreak havoc on the land and water. Large scale soy operations have also displaced small farmers, increasing the economic suffering in a country of only 6 million.

Why is soy so important? The soy industry has stepped up production because the demand for cattle-feed and biofuels has increased.  I don’t have an educated opinion (yet) about biofuels — but from the little I have gathered thus far — there isn’t much of an environmental benefit compared to petrolatum. It’s truly depressing that in this world we can stuff our faces with cheap hamburgers from cows that were fattened up on cheap (subsidized) soy and corn grown half way around the globe at the expense of human rights.

More information

[1] GMO Soy Growers commit Massacre in Paraguay

[2] Campesinos harán movilización para castigar a responsables de asesinato

[3] Soy cultivation spells doom for Paraguayan campesinos

More than 24 million liters of toxic agrochemicals are employed in Paraguay every year, causing deformations, health problems — even death — and environmental damage. But Paraguayan lawmakers ignored this fact when they approved a farming chemical regulation law on May 22, which will still allow these toxic chemicals to be used. (Full Article).

Pop Quiz: Where does Paraguay get its genetically modified soy beans? Answer: Monsanto.

The Institute of Science in Society  11/20/09

Open Letter to Premier of Western Australia

Background

Dr. Judy Carman, senior scientist working in the field of epidemiology in Australia and awarded a government grant to study the safety of GM feed, has been subjected to a sustained campaign of vilification by individuals associated withthe biotech industry, with the clear intention of preventing her from carrying out the research. Political pressure is nowbeing brought to bear on her research by the current Agriculture and Food Minister of Western Australia.

Dr. Carman is not an isolated case. A long string of scientists beginning with Arpad Puszati, Susan Bardocz, Shiv Chopra, Ignacio Chapela, Irina Ermakova, and more has suffered the same attacks when their research or laboratory findings are deemed unfavourable to thebiotech industry; they have also lost their grants or their jobs as a result.

It is important for scientists to make a stand for real science,and for the right of scientists to do research without being harassed and intimidated, or losing their grants or positions. The public will not be well-served unless this academic freedom to do research independent of industry or the whims of government is guaranteed.

Please add your name and affiliation to the letter below by sending an e-mail message to m.w.ho@i-sis.org.uk

Please forward for more signatures

Comment from Dr. Shiv Chopra, Canada

The same or worse is happening all across the world. For instance, a workshop at which I and another scientist were invited last week to discuss the pros and cons of vaccines at the First Nations (Aboriginal) conference in Ottawa was abruptly cancelled, apparently under threat from Health Canada officials. The same is happening with regard to the new consumer protection bills, presently under consideration of the Canadian and US politicians. In June 2009,  I heard of much the same happening during my visit to Australia and New Zealand and, of course, even worse during my last several visits to India.

Comment from Dr. Mira Shiva, India

Thank you so much for sending this letter. Many of us feel extremely agitated about the harassment of independent researchers and scientists whose findings are not in the interest of corporations. We have seen it in the pharmaceutical industry, and witnessed it with regard to food and agriculture.

I am committed to our right to safety and right to information as much as I am disgusted at the misuse of power to block the conduction of pro- public health, public interest research by independents researchers and scientists

I am also deeply concerned about researchers totally changing their conclusions under inducement. For those who have stood up for their research and faced pressures, we offer our deep appreciation and respect, and assurance of our continued solidarity.

To:

Honourable Colin Barnett MEc MLA
Premier
Government of Western Australia
24th Floor, Governor Stirling Tower,
197 St Georges Terrace
PERTH
WA 6000

wa-government@dpc.wa.gov.au

Cc:

The Hon Kevin Rudd MP
Prime Minister
Parliament House
CANBERRA ACT 2600

Hon Terrry Redman MLA
Minister, Dept of Agriculture and Food
Government of Western Australia
3 Baron-Hay Court
South Perth
WA 6151
minister.redman@dpc.wa.gov.au

Professor Mike Daube
President, Public Health Association of Australia
Keep Australia Beautiful Building
Units 2 & 3, 20 Napier Close
Deakin ACT 2600
m.daube@curtin.edu.au

Dr. Robert Williamson, AO, Ph.D, Hon MK (Turku), FAA, FRCPath, FRS
Australian Academy of Science
Ian Potter House
Gordon Street
Canberra 2601
eb@science.org.au

Dear Mr. Barnett,

In 2005, the Government of Western Australia awarded a research grant worth $92,000 toresearchers at theInstitute of Health and Environmental Research, nowbased in Adelaide, Southern Australia [1]. In announcing it, the then Agriculture Minister, Kim Chance, said that “the WA Government will fund an independent long-term animal feeding trial to gain data on the safety or otherwise of GM food crops”.

Far from welcoming the study, the biotech industry sought to block it, initially by writing to the WA government in an effort to get the government to reverse its funding decision, then by either refusing to supply GM crops to the research team or placing such onerous conditions upon the supply of the GM crops that the researchers could not sign up to the conditions [2]. In addition, the lead scientist has been subjected to a sustained campaign of vilification and harassment by commercial interests connected with the biotech industry.

The present Minister of Agriculture, Terry Redman, is now interfering in the research by demanding details about the location of the study laboratories, its research protocols and its progress to date. It is hard to see any legitimate reason for this interference. Information about the procedures was available when the grant was proposed, and it is most unusual for a government or indeed anyone else to demand to see the results of work that is not yet completed. The Minister’s hostility to the line of research is well known from when he was in opposition; he is wrong to use his current position to obstruct science which was commissioned before he took office.

It is wrong, though perhaps not surprising, that the biotechnology industry should be seeking to obstruct research into the safety of what they produce [3], and promoting the vilification and harassment of any scientist conducting such research [4]. It is indefensible for a government to do the same. We call on the Government of Western Australia to stop this unprecedented interference with the research it has commissioned and to ensure that the project will proceed unhindered. We also call on the Government of Australia to require biotechnology companies to make available to independent researchers the material they need for their work.

The citizens of Australia, like those of other countries, will not be well served unless academic freedom is guaranteed for scientists to work independently of biotechnology companies or the whims of governments [5]. It is not possible to take proper decisions on GMOs if the only evidence on which to base those decisions comes from scientists who work for or are chosen by the biotechnology industry.

Notes

1. “Long term feeding trials funded by WA to run in SA” Wednesday, November 30, 2005’ http://gmopundit.blogspot.com/2005/11/long-term-feeding-trials-funded-by-wa.html

Jenifer Eliot in The West Australian, November 28, 2005, reports that the study will be by South Australia’s Institute of Health and Environmental Research (IHER), http://www.iher.org.au/

2. Pro-GM scientists, some paid by biotech companies have been aiding and abetting in the harassment and vilification of independent scientists and researchers of IHER see Letter from 12 scientists to the Premier of Western Australia, The HonDr Geoff Gallop, BEc MA MPhil DPhil MLA 5  December 2005, http://www.jennifermarohasy.com/blog/archives/001067.html; also Food Safety Western Australia Style: A Note from Ian Edwards,  25 June 2007, http://www.jennifermarohasy.com/blog/archives/002115.html http://www.gmfreecymru.org/pivotal_papers/quotes.html

http://www.gmfreecymru.org/documents.htm

 “Call for inquiry into GM feed study funding”, Colin Bettles, Farm Weekly, Australia, 12 Nov 2009, http://fw.farmonline.com.au/news/state/grains-and-cropping/general/call-for-inquiry-into-gm-feed-study-funding/1675689.aspx

3. The biotech companies are notorious for their attempt to block research deemed unfavourable to GMOs. The following statement was submitted in February 2009 to the US Environmental protection Agency (EPA) by scientists who had been invited to submit comments on a meeting to discuss two new BM crops. They were protesting the ‘technology/stewardship agreements’ they have to sign, which inhibit them from doing research for the public good. As a result “no truly independent research can be legally conducted on many critical questions regarding the technology.” We are not aware that any of the 26 is opposed in principle to GM crops. http://www.regulations.gov/search/Regs/home.html#documentDetail?R=090000648084de39

See  http://www.i-sis.org.uk/corporateMonopolyOfScience.php; also the article by Andrew Pollack, New York Times, 20 February 2009, http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/20/business/20crop.html?_r=1

And “GM Research Blocking GMO Scandal: The Long Term Effects of Genetically Modified Food on Humans Scientific Tests Must Be Approved by Industry First”, by F. William Engdahl, Global Research, July 29, 2009 http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=14570

“Do Seed Companies Control GM Crop Research? Scientists must ask corporations for permission before publishing independent research on genetically modified crops. That restriction must end” By The Editors, August 2009 Scientific American Magazine, http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=do-seed-companies-control-gm-crop-research

4. Harassment of independent researchers by pro-GM scientists is rife and takes place in the pages of ‘learned’ journals that  have become effectively trade magazines

What is Nature Biotechnology good for? The Bioscience Resource Project, 4 December 2007, http://www.bioscienceresource.org/commentaries/article.php?id=16

The Genetic Engineering of Food and the Failure of Science – Part 2: Academic Capitalism and the Loss of Scientific Integrity by Don Lotter Int. Jrnl. of Soc. of Agr. & Food, Vol. 16, No. 1, pp. 50-68, http://www.gmfreecymru.org/pivotal_papers/academic_capitalism.html

Systematic bias in favour of no adverse impacts from GM feed, ISIS, 7 January 2008,  http://www.i-sis.org.uk/NatureBiotechnologyLetterErmakova.php

Marshall, A. (2007) Nature Biotechnology 25: pp 981-98;

Heinemann, JA and Traavik, T, letter, Nature Biotechnology 25 (12), p1356, http://www.bioscienceresource.org/commentaries/article.php?id=16; http://www.gmfreecymru.org/pivotal_papers/rottweiler.htm; http://www.woz.ch/artikel/inhalt/2007/nr44/Wissen/15584.html; http://www.gmfreecymru.org/pivotal_papers/involvement_ermakova.htm

Ironically the same learned journals are decrying the vilification of independent researchers by pro-GM scientists. See “GM crops: Battlefield” by Emily Waltz, Nature 2009, 461, 27-32, http://www.nature.com/news/2009/090902/full/461027a.html?s=news_rss

5. On academic freedom, the Australian Academy of Science wrote as follows, in a submission to a Senate Committee Inquiry into academic freedom.

“1. Science makes the most significant advances in an atmosphere of free and critical   discussion. Therefore, academic freedom is of crucial importance, particularly in research at universities, institutes and CSIRO.

2. Governments and their representatives have a responsibility to set general research priorities on behalf of their citizens. However, it is inappropriate for governments and their representatives to interfere with scientific peer review processes or with details of academic debate. That is the role of the academic sector.

3. In very rare cases, it may be appropriate for government to implement ‘reserve powers’ to direct research. This may be the case with some research that has security implications. However, it is inappropriate for governments and their representatives to interfere in genuine academic debate and to intervene with the grant processes of the ARC, NHMRC or CSIRO.” (Letter signed by Professor Philip W. Kuchel, FAA, Secretary, Science Policy)

https://senate.aph.gov.au/submissions/comittees/viewdocument.aspx?id=b2d245b1-a179-4843-a909-8d45715de834

Signed:

Dr Michael Antoniou
Head: Nuclear Biology Group
King’s College London School of Medicine
UK

Dr. Barbara Ann Barrett
Scientists for Global Responsibility
UK

Prof. Ann Clark
Department of Plant Agriculture
University of Guelph
Canada

Dr. Shiv Chopra
Ex-Health Canada
Author of Corrupt to the Core, Memoirs of a Health Canada Whistleblower
Canada

Dr. Zafrullah Chowdhury
Gonoshasthaya Kendra
House 14E, Road 6
Dhanmandi R.A., Dhaka 1205
Bangladesh

Prof. Joe Cummins
Emeritus Prof. of Genetics
University of Western Ontario
Canada

Dr. Jose L. Domingo
Professor of Toxicology
Laboratory of Toxicology and Environmental Health
School of Medicine
“Rovira i Virgili” University
Catalonia, Spain

Dr. Irina Ermakova
Russian Academy of Sciences institute of Higher Nervous Activity and Neurophysiology
Russia

Dr. Stanley WB Ewen
Consultant Pathologist
Aberdeen Royal Infirmary
UK

Dr. Alan Fredeen
Nova Scotia
Canada

Prof. Adrian Gibbs FAA,
Yarralumla, Canberra,
Australia

Dr. Jack A. Heinemann
Director INBI
Prof. School of Biological Sciences
University of Canterbury
New Zealand

Dr. Mae-Wan Ho
Director
Institute of Science in Society
London
UK

Prof. Vyvyan Howard MB. ChB. PhD. FRCPath.
Biomedical Science Research Institute
Ulster University
Northern Ireland
UK

Dr. Brian John
Retired Lecturer in Geography
University of Durham
UK

Prof. Sheldon Krimsky
Department of Urban & Environmental Policy & Planning
School of Arts & Sciences
Department of Public Health and Community Medicine
School of Medicine
Tufts University
Medford
USA

Dr. Eva Novotny
Retired, Formerly Research Associate in Astronomy
Cambridge University
UK

Dr. Jose Ramon Olarieta
Lecturer in Soil Science
Universitat de Lleida
Spain

Prof. Dr. ER Oskov OBE FRSE
Director of International Feed Resource Unit
Macaulay Land Use Institute
UK

Dr. Michel Pimbert
Director
Sustainable Agriculture, Biodiversity and Livelihoods Programme
IIED, London
UK

Dr. Naheeda Portocarero
Animal nutritionist
Maesyronen Farmhouse
Glasbury-on-Wye
UK

Prof. Leda Raptis
Dept of Microbiology and Immunology
Dept of Pathology
Queen’s University
Kingston, Ontario
Canada

Dr. Barry T Rubin
Davis Rubin Associates Ltd
Member of Scientists for Global Responsibility
UK

Prof. Peter Saunders
Emeritus Prof. of Applied Mathematics
King’s College, London
UK

Dr. David Schubert
Professsor
Salk Institute for Biological Studies
La Jolla Ca
USA

Dr Mira Shiva M.D
Director Initiative for Health, Equity & Society,
Chairperson Consumer Education safety of Food & Medicine
South Asian Focal Point
International Peoples Health Council
New Delhi
India

Dr. Vandana Shiva
Navdanya
Recipient of Right Livelihood Award
New Delhi
India

Dr. David Suzuki
Emeritus professor
Sustainable Development Research Institute
University of British Columbia
Canada

Dr. Enric Tello
Professor of Economic History and Institutions
Head of the Dept. of Economic History and Institutions at the Universitat de Barcelona
Spain

reposted with permission

Hi again: was talking with a friend a couple of days ago. We got to talking about canning and preserving and putting up all kinds of fruits, vegetables, and meats. She mentioned how many quarts of tomatoes she had canned this past summer. I replied that I knew all about that. I have had more experience than I ever wanted in the field of canning and preserving. I then said that tomatoes were so easy to can and they could be counted on to be just as good as the day they were canned, no matter how long they sat on the shelf. She then said that this is not the case anymore. Nowadays, tomatoes have been genetically altered to the point that almost all the acid has been removed from the tomatoes. Now, when they are canned, unless some acid such as lemon juice is added to them, they will spoil rather quickly.

I was truly shocked. I had canned many jars of tomatoes and depended on them many a cold winter day to help stretch a pot of soup or a casserole. That would be terrible if the canned tomatoes spoiled. And then I got to thinking about it all. I guess that is why tomatoes taste like cardboard these days. They have none of that good tomato taste that we used to look forward to each summer. I can still smell that good tomato smell and taste that great taste of years ago. But I never knew exactly what had happened to the tomatoes. And now I know.

I already knew the grains and meats had been genetically engineered to the point that you wonder just what it is that you are eating some days. But I really didn’t know that was why tomatoes had changed so much. Guess that means all the fruits and vegetables are genetically altered to the point that they can sit on the grocer’s shelf for months before spoiling. That is why they can ship them all over the world without damage. Used to be, the tomatoes in the southern part of our state had to be bought, shipped and eaten or canned in a few day’s time or else they would not be palatable. Now, I go into the store, no matter if it is a local one or a national one, feel the hard tough tomato, try to smell it to see if it will have any taste and come away from the store disappointed once again.

And it is said that even if you grow them yourself from old time seeds, they will still get genetically altered if they are pollinated by the bees and cross pollinated with a neighbor’s seeds. Just the same taste as an old piece of cardboard.

I know people get sick and tired of hearing about how good things used to be, but you know that is true these days. Wish we could return to the good tasting, big, bursting tomatoes like my grandmother used to grow. Or to the really great tasting watermelon that I used to eat as a kid,  or to summer squash that tasted like squash instead of a yellow notepad. And those freshly made preserves were so good. I can still remember the true plum preserves and that great strawberry shortcake. Where did it all go? Genetically altered, that’s where it went. What a shame. But I can still wish.

Post #8

Tonight I watched the movie Food, Inc which exposes the American industrial food system and its effects on health, the environment, human rights, and the economy. I found the book to be more informative but the movie is definitely worth watching — and take that from someone who doesn’t like watching movies. I was able to download the entire DVD off a popular torrent site. With a little search engine magic, it shouldn’t be too difficult for you to find.

The most interesting portion of the movie is the story of Monsanto, a multinational agricultural biotechnology corporation. It currently sells 90% of the worlds genetically modified seeds [1]. Monsanto is also the company behind bST/BGH (Bovine Growth Hormone) which is controversial to its effects on human and animal health. They are also the people behind the herbicide Roundup which is responsible for a host of environmental and health ills. Anyway, Monsanto “owns” seeds and patents their own form of these seeds. When a company such as Monsanto owns life they are able to set any market price they deem fit — and ultimately, become the only choice in the marketplace.  Farmers are being sued for saving seeds because it violates patent laws. What if the wind carries Monsanto patented crops to a nearby farm that isn’t using Monsanto stock? They can be — and have been — sued. This puts many farmers out of business because there is no way in the world to compete with a company so loaded with cash [2]. There is something gravely wrong for a company to hold so much power! I’m going to research more about Monsanto and avoid their products, the best offense against such a corrupt empire is to vote with your wallet.

Sources:

[1] http://www.greenpeace.org/international/news/monsanto_movie080307

[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monsanto#As_plaintiff

Alert! Correct the Minister on Terminator!

By Lucy Sharratt, CBAN

Nov 18 2009

Contact Gerry Ritz today about Terminator

Minister of Agriculture, Gerry Ritz: Incorrect and alarming statements about Terminator in Canada

Our Minister of Agriculture has made incorrect statements on Terminator technology to Chinese officials – he stated that Canadian canola is Terminator! But this is absolutely wrong as Terminator has never been field tested or commercialized anywhere in the world.

On November 5th, the Manitoba Cooperator reported that the Minister said he told Chinese officials that they need not fear Chinese farmers growing Canadian canola because the seeds will not grow: “I assured
them that with the varieties we have now, it’s not going to work  because they all have Terminator seeds in them…”

Apparently Canada’s Minister of Agriculture does not know what Terminator technology is, does not know that there is an international moratorium on Terminator, and has not paid attention to the thousands of letters and postcards opposing Terminator sent by Canadians over the past 4 years.

The Minister’s statement leads us to ask: Why is the Minister not correctly informed about this highly controversial GM technology? What is the Government’s true position on Terminator? Would the
Conservative Government support the use of Terminator seeds if the technology was available?

We need to demand that the Minister correct his statements to Chinese officials and state the Government’s opposition to Terminator.

TAKE ACTION:

Please write to Hon. Gerry Ritz, Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food to ask him to state the Government’s opposition to Terminator. Ask the Government to continue supporting the International Moratorium and to establish a ban on Terminator in Canada.

You can also send an instant email to the Prime Minister from www.cban.ca/terminatoraction

You can also support the campaign to Ban Terminator in Canada by sending your tax-deductible donation to CBAN from www.cban.ca/donate

For details please read below and refer to www.cban.ca/terminator

DETAILS

The Minister made statements to Chinese officials regarding Terminator technology seeds genetically engineered to be sterile after first planting – that lead to serious questions about the reliability of the
Minister’s information as well as the Government’s position on Terminator.

Terminator technology is technically called Genetic Use Restriction Technology or GURTS and is often referred to as ’suicide seeds’. By switching off the fertility of seeds, it is designed to stop farmers from saving and replanting seeds, with the aim of fostering farmer dependence on the seed market. Terminator is extremely dangerous and is globally highly controversial.

On November 5th, the Manitoba Cooperator reported that the Minister said he told Chinese officials that they need not fear Chinese farmers growing Canadian canola because the seeds will not grow: ?I assured them that with the varieties we have now, it?s not going to work because they all have Terminator seeds in them…? (“Other motives speculated for move to block imports due to blackleg, Minister Says Canadian Canola Doesn?t Sprout”, Thursday, November 05, 2009, Allan Dawson, Manitoba Co-operator)

This statement is factually incorrect as Terminator has not been commercialized, or field-tested, in any country. More importantly, there is an international moratorium on Terminator at the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity ? a moratorium that was established in 2000 and strengthened in 2006.

Minister Ritz is misrepresenting Canadian agriculture and raising alarm on the world stage. The Minister is also adding to international suspicion of Canadian GM regulation and Canadian exports at a time of market crisis for farmers that is directly related to GM crops:
-  Europe has closed its doors to Canadian flax due to contamination with GM flax. www.cban.ca/flax

-   Canada rubber-stamped approval for the eight-trait GM corn SmartStax in a way that is not consistent with European regulations. www.cban.ca/corn

-   Monsanto withdrew its submission for approval in Europe of the high lysine GM corn LY038 approved in Canada, because European authorities requested additional food safety data.

For more information: www.cban.ca/terminator

Lucy Sharratt, Coordinator

Canadian Biotechnology Action Network (CBAN)
Collaborative Campaigning for Food Sovereignty and Environmental Justice
431 Gilmour Street, Second Floor
Ottawa, Ontario, Canada, K2P 0R5
Phone: 613 241 2267 ext.6
Fax: 613 241 2506
coordinator@cban.ca
www.cban.ca

Join the Global Rejection of GE Wheat! www.cban.ca/GEwheat

Donate today to support the campaign  www.cban.ca/donate

Video of Colleen Ross at the ‘Terminator On Trial’ event.

The landscape of health has changed. No longer are our families guaranteed a healthy livelihood, not in the face of the current rates of cancer, diabetes, obesity, Alzheimers and allergies. In the words of Elizabeth Warren, Harvard University law professor who is head of the Congressional Oversight Panel, “We need a new model,” and we need a new food system. It’s our health on the line.

8 Steps Obama Could Take to Save Food

1. Evenly distribute government moneys to all farmers: The current system allocates the lion share of our tax dollars (approximately $60 billion) to farmers growing crops whose seeds have been engineered to produce their own insecticides and tolerate increasing doses of weed killing herbicides. As a result, these crops, with a large chemical footprint, are cheaper to produce, while farmers growing organic produce are charged fees to prove that their crops are safe and then charged additional fees to label these crops as free of synthetic chemicals and “organic”. If organic farmers received an equal distribution of taxpayer funded handouts from the government, the cost of producing crops free from synthetic chemicals would be cheaper, making these crops more affordable to more people, in turn increasing demand for these products which would further drive down costs.  If we were to reallocate our national budget and evenly distribute our tax dollars to all farmers, clean food would be affordable to everyone and not just those in certain zip codes.

2. Reinstitute the USDA pesticide reporting standard that was waived under the Bush administration. In 2008, the USDA waived pesticide reporting requirements (a procedure that has been in place since the early 1990s) so that farmers and consumers would know the level of chemicals being applied to food crops. Given a report just released that reveals a 383 million pound increase in the use of weed killing herbicides since the introduction of herbicide tolerant crops in 1996 and the potential impact that this glyphosate containing compound is having on both the environment and on our health, perhaps the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy assumed under the previous administration should be reversed.

3. Reinstate the pre-Bush administration dollar value that the EPA places on the life of every American: in May 2008, the Bush administration lowered the value placed on the life of every American by almost $1 million, benefiting corporations who use this figure in their cost benefit analyses, marking down our lives from $7.8 million to $6.9 million the same way a car dealer might markdown a “96 Camaro with bad brakes. The EPA figure is used to assess corporate liability when a company’s actions put a life at risk. While this figure benefits the corporations conducting the cost benefit analysis when assessing the health impact of their chemicals, the costs of these chemicals are being externalized onto the public in the form of health care costs.

4. Allow public debate over the nomination of pesticide lobbyist, Islam Siddiqui for Chief Agriculture Negotiator at the office of the United States Trade Representative. As addressed in a letter sent to Chairman Max Baucus and Ranking Member Charles Grassley of the Senate Finance Committee, Islam Siddiqui, nominated for Chief Agriculture Negotiator at the office of the United States Trade Representative, was formerly employed by CropLife America, whose firm challenged Michelle Obama’s organic garden, has consistently lobbied the U.S government to weaken international treaties governing the use and export of toxic chemicals such as PCBs, DDT and dioxins, and blocked international attempts to help regulate pesticides that increasingly linked to chronic skin and respiratory problems, birth defects and cancer in our community. Given that a growing body of scientific evidence supports the theory that chemicals in our food are contributing to the rise in health problems, particularly in children, the appointment of an industry lobbyist to export our challenged food system to the rest of the world may be in the best interest of agrichemical corporations but consideration should also be given to the health implications that these novel chemicals, proteins and allergens may have.

5. Encourage climate change advocates like Al Gore to discuss Pesticide Use by Big Ag and its Chemical Footprint: While speaking openly about the petroleum industry’s impact on global warming, leading environmental advocates like Al Gore have been quiet about the chemical contribution that the recent introduction of crops genetically engineered with pesticidal toxins play on global warming despite scientific evidence from the Royal Society of Chemistry highlighting their impact. Since the Clinton Administration’s introduction of biotech crops designed and engineered to both withstand increasing doses of weed killing chemicals and produce their own insecticides, new reports based on USDA data, show a 383 million pound increase in the chemicals being applied to these crops since their introduction in 1996. According to the Royal Society of Chemistry, “growing biofuels is probably of no benefit and in fact is actually making the climate issue worse” given that glyphosate, being applied in increasing doses to these crops, breaks down into nitrogen.

6. Update the Consumer Protection and Food Allergen Labeling Act to inform consumers of these newly engineered corn allergens: The recent engineering of novel food proteins and toxins into the US food supply has enhanced profitability for the food industry by allowing commodities like corn to produce their own insecticides. As a result, corn is now considered an insecticide and regulated by the EPA .  For this same reason, this corn has been either banned or labeled in products in other developed countries because the new toxins and novel allergens that it contains have not yet been proven safe. Despite the lack of evidence, this corn is in the American food supply. The increase in the rate of food allergies as demonstrated in the December issue of Pediatrics and the growing number of people with this condition- whose bodies recognize food as “foreign” and launch inflammatory reaction in an effort to drive out these “foreign” food invaders, speaks to the need to update and amend the food allergen labeling act to label these newly engineered genetically enhanced proteins and allergens as governments around the world do.

7. Ask the SEC to join the Department of Justice in its investigation into trade practices in agrichemical industry. As the Department of Justice begins its investigation into the impact that Monsanto’s monopoly is having on farmers, their financial situation and the food supply, research out of the USDA highlights that the biotech industry is not delivering on what some are calling their “hype-to-reality ratio”. As farmers are charged premiums for seeds that have been engineered to produce greater yields, research out of the USDA, Kansas State University shows that these products are not delivering as promised, directly impacting the cost structures of farmers in a razor to razorblade scenario. As farmers purchase genetically modified seeds in the hopes that they will increase yields and drive down cost structure and their dependency on weed killers, studies now suggest that since the introduction of the “razor”, these biotech crops introduced 13 years ago, farmers are actually spending more on the “razorblade”, the herbicides and weed killers required to manage them, driving farmers debt to asset ratios to record levels. Given that Monsanto’s CFO, Treasurer, Controller are all leaving the company by year end, the Securities and Exchange Commission could interview these three exiting executives and learn more about the financial predicaments of Big Ag’s customers, the farmers, and the greater ramifications that this monopoly will have on food prices.

8. Appoint a Children’s Health Advisor to serve on the USDA’s National School Lunch Program: The landscape of children’s health has changed. No longer are the American children guaranteed a healthy childhood, not in the face of the current rates of obesity, diabetes and allergies. Perhaps it is time that we follow the lead of governments in other developed countries and create a Cheif Advisor for Child and Youth Health whose responsibilities might include, but not be limited to, serving in an advisory capacity to the USDA on the National School Lunch Program. Under the USDA’s current budget for the National School Lunch Program of approximately $8.5 billion (in comparison the Pentagon’s 2009 budget $600 billion), less than a dollar is available per meal for the purchase of healthy food once overhead costs are taken out. Given that 1 in 3 American children now has allergies, ADHD, autism of asthma and according to an October 2008 study from the Centers for Disease Control, 1 in 3 Fourth graders is expected to be insulin dependent by the time they reach adulthood. As a result, dietary concerns are becoming increasingly prevalent for the estimated 30.9 million children and approximately 102,000 schools and child care institutions that participate in the National School Lunch Program. Given that increasing scientific evidence points to the roles that environmental insults like synthetic growth hormones in milk and trans fats in processed foods are having on our health, investing in a children’s health advisor may provide long term benefits to the future of our health care system .

It’s our food system on the line.  And if our children are any indicator, our health and the economic burden that it presents are on the line, too.

We are honored to highlight this article by Paula Crossfield, editor of Civil Eats.

A new report out today, Impacts of Genetically Engineered Crops on Pesticide Use in the United States: The First Thirteen Years [pdf] authored by Dr. Charles Benbrook, chief scientist at The Organic Center, reveals that the use of genetically modified (GM) corn, soy and cotton crops has increased the amount of pesticides used in the past 13 years by 318 million pounds.

This information comes to light as the industry struggles to position itself as providing environmental benefit through use of bt technology — insecticide producing seeds — savings from which are diminished in light of a six times greater herbicide usage.

Farmers have become increasingly critical of both GM seed as it goes up in price, and herbicides like Roundup, also known as glyphosate, as ‘superweeds‘ become prevalent in treated fields. The growth of pigweed, which can quickly reach widths of 6 inches at the stalk, and other invasive, glyphosate-resistant species increases farmers reliance on more high-risk herbicides, including 2,4-D, dicamba and paraquat, and has resulted in a return to hand harvesting and even abandoning of fields.

Dr. Benbrook used the USDA’s National Agriculture Statistics Service data and publicly available Monsanto information to ascertain these findings. The report states that it became increasingly difficult to get such information from the USDA as it ceased collecting thorough data on pesticide usage in the US in recent years. Furthermore, the USDA has never conducted research on the relationship between GM crops and increased pesticide use, resulting in a lack of in-depth information to inform regulators. (I wrote about the need for more such research here, where Dr. Benbrook also chimed in.)

The report challenges researchers and regulators to consider the following:

Herbicides and insecticides are potent environmental toxins. Where GE crops cannot deliver meaningful reductions in reliance on pesticides, policy makers need to look elsewhere. In addition to toxic pollution, agriculture faces the twin challenges of climate change and burgeoning world populations. The biotechnology industry’s current advertising campaigns promise to solve those problems, just as the industry once promised to reduce the chemical footprint of agriculture. Before we embrace GE crops as solution to these new challenges, we need a sober, data-driven appraisal of its track record on earlier pledges.

With glyphosate producer Monsanto encouraging farmers to diversify their herbicide use to control superweeds, this research shows that we could be at a turning point for Roundup Ready technology. As farmers realize the cost effectiveness of conventional seeds which deliver similar yields and allow seeds to be saved for reuse in future seasons, GM crops could prove a technological experiment gone wrong as we move toward creating a more durable and diverse food system.

This article first appeared on Civil Eats.

I get emails from relatives and friends about the current events in the news – whether it is about this or that.   I hear complaints  – some about corporations, the quality of the food, vaccines, and so many other things.

This made me think a little.

It’s scary to realize what (some) corporations are doing to people – food being altered (GMO) or de-quality-fied (synthetics and flavorings, salt, sugar, fat) – drugs – war – the list goes on and on.  Corporations – generally speaking – are inherentally structured as contradictory to earth, human and life values.

Let’s take responsibility for ourselves – in education, health, lifestyles, habits, the foods we eat, in the actions we take daily, in our politics, in our beliefs, and in our voices. This also means avoiding the bad influences and bad stuff that can do us personal harm – whether is affects us immediately or years later.

We hold the power to live the life we wish to live and in the quality we wish to live it.

It’s about taking full responsibility for your own destiny.  Control is in our own hands.

Carey Gillam   Reuters   Nov 18, 2009

KANSAS CITY – The rapid adoption by U.S. farmers of genetically engineered corn, soybeans and cotton has promoted increased use of pesticides, an epidemic of herbicide-resistant weeds and more chemical residues in foods, according to a report issued Tuesday by health and environmental protection groups.

The groups said research showed that herbicide use grew by 383 million pounds from 1996 to 2008, with 46 percent of the total increase occurring in 2007 and 2008.

The report was released by nonprofits The Organic Center (TOC), the Union for Concerned Scientists (UCS) and the Center for Food Safety (CFS).

The groups said that while herbicide use has climbed, insecticide use has dropped because of biotech crops. They said adoption of genetically engineered corn and cotton that carry traits resistant to insects has led to a reduction in insecticide use by 64 million pounds since 1996.

Still, that leaves a net overall increase on U.S. farm fields of 318 million pounds of pesticides, which includes insecticides and herbicides, over the first 13 years of commercial use.

The rise in herbicide use comes as U.S. farmers increasingly adopt corn, soy and cotton that have been engineered with traits that allow them to tolerate dousings of weed killer. The most popular of these are known as “Roundup Ready” for their ability to sustain treatments with Roundup herbicide and are developed and marketed by world seed industry leader Monsanto Co.

Monsanto rolled out the first biotech crop, Roundup Ready soybeans, in 1996.

Monsanto officials declined to comment on the report. But the Biotechnology Industry Organization, of which Monsanto is a member, said the popularity of herbicide-resistant crops showed their value outweighs any associated detriments.

“Herbicide resistance crops are incredibly popular with farmers. They help them manage their weed problems in ways traditional crops don’t,” said Mike Wach, BIO managing director of science and regulatory affairs.

“If a farmer feels a crop is causing them more trouble than it is worth they will stop using it,” Wach said. “Farmers are continuing to adopt these crops because they provide benefits, not liabilities and problems.”

BIO officials pointed to a report issued earlier this year by PG Economics Ltd that said the volume of herbicides used in biotech soybean crops globally decreased by 161 million pounds, or 4.6 percent, from 1996 to 2007.

The report by the environmental groups states that a key problem resulting from the increase in herbicide use is the emergence of “super weeds,” which are difficult to kill because they have become resistant to the herbicides.

“With glyphosate-resistant weeds now infesting millions of acres, farmers face rising costs coupled with sometimes major yield losses, and the environmental impact of weed management systems will surely rise,” said Charles Benbrook, chief scientist of The Organic Center.

The groups additionally criticized the agricultural biotechnology industry for claiming that higher costs for genetically engineered seeds are justified by multiple benefits to farmers, including decreased spending on pesticides.

The group said biotech corn seed prices in 2010 could be almost three times the cost of conventional seed, while new enhanced biotech soybean seed for 2010 could be 42 percent more than the original biotech version.

“This report confirms what we’ve been saying for years,” said Bill Freese, science policy analyst for the Center for Food Safety. “The most common type of genetically engineered crops promotes increased use of pesticides, an epidemic of resistant weeds, and more chemical residues in our foods. This may be profitable for the biotech/pesticide companies, but it’s bad news for farmers, human health and the environment.”

(Editing by Christian Wiessner)

fbiblogs.files.wordpress.com/.../council-4.jpg

WED. 11/18, 9 am Important Council Meeting To Save Kona Council Meetings!

Please Show Up In Person or by Video

*Bill 132 Draft 3 /Yagong – County land sales – Public right to know final bid price on min.10 acres or over $500,000 – Intended use and name of potential buyer.
*Reso 216 /Yoshimoto – Authorizes sale of certain county lands. (*With Yagong amendments!)
*Reso 265 /Hoffmann – Urges protection of Hawai’i’s home rule authority relating to Ag policy, including GMO’s.
*Reso 267 /Ikeda – Reduces Kona Council meetings to 4 per year.
*Reso 237 /Naeole – Urges legislators to amend vaccination laws to include exemptions from mandated programs.

*****************************
Urgent- please forward: From Debbie Hecht

Council meetings 4x per year in Kona- Resolution 267-09  aims to reduce council meetings in Kona to once every 4 months, because the cost is $7,165.00 each time the council meets in Kona. Introduced by Donald Ikeda.  I am assuming that this is the cost of staff and council members’ travel and lodging and room rental at the Sheraton.  (It would be interesting to hear the exact average expenses).  Remember the West Hawaii Civic Center should be completed at the end of 2010, so we will have a place for council meetings, which will reduce the expense of the room rental.  At best, this is a stop/gap measure.

If you want to testify in person, the Council meeting is in Hilo still at the Ben Franklin Building or you can testify at the Kona council office and the Waimea office at 9:00 am.

What’s really at issue here?

1- If you believe that our  elected officials represent us- THE PEOPLE, (and that’s how I see the job of a council member), how can Hilo side council members really understand west side problems if they don’t come over here?

2- Are we really talking about money?  Council meetings are in Kona 12 times per year and Hilo 12 times per year.   If each Kona meeting costs $7,165. per meeting, this means the cost to be fairly represented on both sides of the island  is a whopping $85,980.00 per year? Is this what equal representation costs? Now we have a price tag on the VALUE of equal representation.   Mahalo Mr. Ikeda!!

3- in the county’s estimated budget for 2009-2010 the revenues are estimated to be $317,474,000.00 for this year.  A mere  $85,908.00 is .00027% of the budget revenues. The estimated revenues for next year  (2010 to 2100)  are estimated to be $328,440,000.00 that is .00026% of the budget.   Here is the link to the county’s budgets: http://co.hawaii.hi.us/council/fy_budgets.htm.The information on the revenues is on page 22 of the 2009-2010 budgets.

MY OPINION: This is a flat out disrespectful, muscle- flexing,  power grab by the Hilo majority, showing little caring for West Hawaii who provides 70% of the property tax revenue for the island

PLEASE email the council and ask to continue meetings in Kona and Hilo equally.  Council members do not listen as well when we are on the TV screen as when we can be in the same room and look them in the eye, to testify in person

PLEASE CONSIDER EMAILING THE COUNCIL:

RESPECT YOUR FELLOW CITIZENS, CONSTITUENTS AND TAXPAYERS.  HOLD EQUAL MEETINGS IN HILO AND KONA.

Cut and paste the following group email to the council and mayor:

<dikeda@co.hawaii.hi.us>, <donishi@co.hawaii.hi.us>, <enaeole@co.hawaii.hi.us>,  <cohmayor@co.hawaii.hi.us>,  <counciltestimony@co.hawaii.hi.us>, <dyagong@co.hawaii.hi.us>,  <genriques@co.hawaii.hi.us>,  <bford@co.hawaii.hi.us>, <kgreenwell@co.hawaii.hi.us>,  <jyoshimoto@co.hawaii.hi.us>,  <phoffmann@co.hawaii.hi.us>,

Bill 132, Draft 3- The “Transparency” Bill. Bravo to Dominic Yagong for this great bill for our lands!! This bill requires that the Director of Finance submit to the council approval on the lease or sale of any property over 10 acres and over $500,000. The resolution shall also include the bid price or terms of the bid lease, the intended use of the property and the name or names of the prospective buyer or lessee.  The County Council must approve this lease or sale information.Testimony on Bills at first reading will be heard at 1:00 Bills for first reading:

The great “gift” of this bill?  It gives the public the information and asks for their input on the property that we as taxpayers OWN.  It seems simple and fair that this should occur on properties that our elected REPRESENTATIVES are selling or leasing ON OUR BEHALF.

Volunteer opportunity on Thursday, November 19th from 10 to 2:00 at Hale Halawai.  Help serve Thanksgiving dinner to the homeless at 11:30 am.  Call Josephine Ibarra to volunteer at 935-3050 ext 141

–
Debbie Hecht
P.O. Box 4148
Kailua-Kona, HI 96745
(808) 989-3222

A look at how GE Corporate Policy can backfire from protectionism, and the chaos it creates in communities.

by April Reeves

I’m not one to believe everything on the web so I usually pick up a phone and do my own research. However (news stories being true at this moment) it seems as though Monsanto may be in a GM pickle.

When you create any patent, you are now in constant vigil to protect the patent from theft, plagiarism, and misuse. Put that patent on one of the most vital industries known to mankind – food – and it’s a recipe for disaster. Damage control is a ‘corporate division’ in itself for the big biotechs, and that’s got to help drive up the cost of seeds.

So now you are forced to protect your product (seeds) and sue all those perpetrators who allegedly steal from you. This action eventually sets up a path of resistance from those who you rely on to buy the patented products in the first place.

It’s much like marrying King Henry VIII. After a few beheadings, what woman in their right mind would jump into matrimony with the guy?

Why would farmers set themselves up for potential lawsuits and a lifetime of trouble from the debt incurred (remember Percy Schmeiser)? Why would they allow their patented seeds drift over to their friend’s fields, setting them up for disaster?

Eventually, and it has already started, this form of “friend or foe” breaks down and polarizes communities and tears families apart. GM crops have the potential to alter the way of life that farmers have nurtured over the centuries.

While we often see the news stories and read our papers and internet, we are oblivious to the human tolls that go unnoticed and unreported. These are often the real tragedies – the silent destruction of community and family.

However, in every tragic event lies a determination to change what is not working. The human spirit is stronger than any rock, tree or corporate policy. Human spirit will decide what it wants, and it is often a dramatic event that pulls this together to create a cleaner, greener, GE free world.

April Reeves is a freelance writer and can be reached at: aprilreeves@shaw.ca

Monsanto Bans Fined Farmers from Future Roundup Ready Use

Country Guide, Canada
21.10.2009

Four southern Ontario farmers fined a total of over $90,000 for unlicensed use of Roundup Ready soybeans are the first to be banned from future use of Monsanto’s patented genetics under its violator exclusion policy.

“One of the more significant outcomes of the case against these four growers is that it marks the first time Monsanto has implemented its violator exclusion policy,” the Winnipeg-based Canadian wing of the U.S. seed and ag chem firm said in a release Monday.

“Under this policy, violators who do not reach a settlement with Monsanto and whose violation results in Monsanto having to go to court, lose all access to current and future Monsanto technologies.”

The four growers fines vary between $66 per acre and $185 per acre, the company said, for amounts owing to Monsanto between $9,228 and $62,748.

The court case, which dates back to the fall of 2005 and most recently involved a ruling on costs in July this year, is now awaiting a decision on whether an appeal by the four farmers will be allowed, Monsanto said.

The company said Federal Court Justice Russel Zinn “soundly rejected” the four growers’ arguments that they should only be required to pay the license fees they didn’t pay for buying Roundup Ready soybeans through proper channels, and that they made no profit from growing the Roundup Ready crops.

Monsanto Canada “is satisfied the Federal Court of Canada has sent a strong message that there are significant consequences associated with infringing our patent and we expect this will dissuade growers from infringing our patents in the future,” the company said.

Lucy Sharratt, Coordinator
Canadian Biotechnology Action Network (CBAN)
Collaborative Campaigning for Food Sovereignty and Environmental Justice
431 Gilmour Street, Second Floor
Ottawa, Ontario, Canada, K2P 0R5
Phone: 613 241 2267 ext.6
Fax: 613 241 2506
coordinator@cban.ca
www.cban.ca

Join the Global Rejection of GE Wheat! www.cban.ca/GEwheat

Donate today to support the campaign  www.cban.ca/donate

I moved to Vancouver, BC last week to work for the 2010 Vancouver Olympic Games as a Victory Ceremony Transport Manager. Although my job has nothing directly to do with my mission of “Making the World Healthier One Event at a Time,” it is going to be a great experience and I am going to find the connection somehow.

Saturday is a good case in point.

I started the day with my first visit to the Granville Island Public Market and my new slice of Heaven. This market is a dream come true for a person looking for fresh everything and/or with a restricted diet. Just as it boasts on its website, the market is a fascinating assortment of vendors showcasing the freshest and finest in gastronomic delights. “All fresh from the ocean, the oven or the field.”

After walking through the entire market once, I quickly determined which vendors I wanted to visit to get the ingredients needed for the quinoa salad I was making for a dinner party my Olympic colleagues and I were attending that night.

Duso’s Spice Shop had all the spices, nuts and grains in either self-serve bulk containers or nicely packaged single or double-serve resealable bags. I got sugar-free dried cranberries, organic raisins and walnut pieces that I needed along with raw almonds, cinnamon and pre-cooked soup flakes that only require boiling water to prepare. Sunlight Farms had the locally grown and some organic vegetables, fruit and herbs, including cilantro and parsley I needed.

Then, as with any shopping spree, I found something that I did not go to the market to get. There was a day table selling “the world’s most amazing breakfast cereal.” When I read the ingredients and found that it fit within my dietary restrictions, and that it requires no cooking, I, of course, had to try it. The woman mixed 2 Tbsp. of cereal with 4 Tbsp. of hemp milk and voila, I said “Holy Crap,” aptly, also the name of the cereal. Produced on the Sunshine Coast by Hapifoods, Holy Crap is a great-tasting, GMO free, all natural, ready-to-eat, raw vegan cereal that is also gluten free, lactose free, high in iron and has amazing dietary fiber and omega 3s. It’s loaded with antioxidants and one serving is a major source of calcium and protein.

Needless to say, my first visit to the market will definitely NOT be my last. I will definitely enjoy my walks to and through the market over the next few months.

New Report Reveals Dramatic Rise in Pesticide Use on Genetically Engineered (GE) Crops Due to the Spread of Resistant Weeds

http://www.organic-center.org
GE crops increase herbicide use by 383 million pounds from 1996 to
2008, with 46 percent of the total increase occurring in 2007 and 2008

Genetically engineered (GE) corn, soybeans and cotton have increased use of weed-killing herbicides by 383 million pounds in the U.S. from 1996 to 2008, according to a new report titled “Impacts of Genetically Engineered Crops on Pesticide Use: The First 13 Years (PDF)” announced today by The Organic Center (TOC), the Union for Concerned Scientists (UCS) and the
Center for Food Safety (CFS). In addition, GE corn and cotton have reduced insecticide use by 64 million pounds, resulting in an overall increase of 318 million pounds of pesticides over the first 13 years of commercial use.

Based upon data from the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), report
author Dr. Charles Benbrook presents compelling evidence linking the
increase in pesticide use on GE, ‘herbicide-tolerant’ (HT) crops to
the emergence and spread of herbicide-resistant weeds. This report
comes at a time when farmers are increasingly critical of GE crops
because of drastically rising biotech seed prices and increasingly
resistant weeds.

The agricultural biotechnology industry claims that the much higher
costs of GE seeds are justified by multiple benefits to farmers,
including decreased spending on pesticides. The price of GE seeds has
risen precipitously in recent years, and the need to make additional
herbicide applications in an effort to keep up with resistant weeds is
also increasing cash production costs. As an example, corn farmers
planting ‘SmartStax‘ hybrids in 2010 will spend around $124 per acre
for seed, almost three times the cost of conventional corn seed. In
addition, new-generation ‘Roundup Ready’ (RR) 2 soybean seed, to be
introduced on a widespread basis next year, will cost 42 percent more
than the original RR seeds they are displacing.

“The drastic increase in pesticide use with genetically engineered
crops is due primarily to the rapid emergence of weeds resistant to
glyphosate, the active ingredient in Monsanto’s Roundup herbicide,”
said Dr. Charles Benbrook, report author and chief scientist of The
Organic Center. “With glyphosate-resistant weeds now infesting
millions of acres, farmers face rising costs coupled with sometimes
major yield losses, and the environmental impact of weed management
systems will surely rise.”

Today’s report refutes industry’s assertions that its crops have
reduced pesticide use. Last April, UCS released a report that found
engineered crops have largely failed to increase crop yields, despite
the industry’s consistent claims to the contrary. “Dr. Benbrook’s work
shows that the overall chemical footprint of today’s engineered crops
is massive and growing,” said Dr. Margaret Mellon, food and
environment program director for the Union of Concerned Scientists.
“That growth in pesticide use has important implications for farmers’
bottom lines, public health and the health of the environment.”

“This report confirms what we’ve been saying for years,” said Bill
Freese, science policy analyst for the Center for Food Safety. “The
most common type of genetically engineered crops promotes increased
use of pesticides, an epidemic of resistant weeds, and more chemical
residues in our foods. This may be profitable for the biotech/
pesticide companies, but it’s bad news for farmers, human health and
the environment.”

Industry claims that GE crops are benefitting the environment ignore
the impacts of the 300+ million additional pounds of pesticides
required over the period covered by this study, as well as growing
reliance by farmers on high-risk herbicides including 2,4-D and
paraquat. In addition to the environmental harm, a report released
earlier this year by TOC demonstrated that exposure to pesticides is
linked to increased risk of reproductive abnormalities, birth defects
and neurological problems.

The analytical work required to complete this report was funded by a
coalition of non-governmental organizations including the Union of
Concerned Scientists, the Center for Food Safety, the Cornerstone
Campaign, Californians for GE-Free Agriculture, Greenpeace
International and Rural Advancement Fund International USA.

Lucy Sharratt, Coordinator
Canadian Biotechnology Action Network (CBAN)
Collaborative Campaigning for Food Sovereignty and Environmental Justice
431 Gilmour Street, Second Floor
Ottawa, Ontario, Canada, K2P 0R5
Phone: 613 241 2267 ext.6
Fax: 613 241 2506
coordinator@cban.ca
www.cban.ca

Join the Global Rejection of GE Wheat! www.cban.ca/GEwheat

Donate today to support the campaign  www.cban.ca/donate

This story starts, for me, when I read around about  the “local” Kellogg’s company to find out if they used GMO foods in their cereals.  It turns out, in fact, that the Kellogg’s Cereal company has used GMO products for years, and for my queries specifically, had used GMO sugar grown right here in Michigan.

I had thought for some time that the local sugar sold here, Big Chief, had to be too good to be true, and it is.  It was inexpensive, locally grown, almost obscenely abundant, and Wal-Mart carried it. I don’t know why I bought it after that litany to begin with.  But I did, and I soon felt guilty.  Our local Wal-Mart has fallen prey to big corporate execs who have stopped carrying any smaller local brands, stopped carrying the organic brands and have moved away from anything with a “natural” label, so I was suspicious of any of the products that were left.  Turns out:  I was right to be suspicious.

Check out the local “growing” facility for Big Chief Sugar.  Does it look like it has any farm-base to its facility?  Well, not really, right?  Yeah, I got fooled too.  But, I have since stopped buying the Big Chief Sugar.  See, I garden too, and I do it organically.  I am allergic to the herbicides and pesticides, having come in contact with some in the past and sustained severe burns, even at small levels.  When I had poured out a bird bath onto some ground that had been sprayed with Round-up two weeks previous to that, anywhere the water touched the ground and then my feet caused a skin burn, one that peeled.  It was horrific.  So, no more Round-up.  I even went so far as to fight with my family and our local city to halt Round-up spraying because I had been burned so badly.  So, no more sprays, but I don’t want to support growers who may be spreading Round-up all over, especially if I would ingest it or have it impact my own garden.   No more Big Chief Sugar for me and my family.

What are Michigan farmers going to do if there is no more seed for conventional sugar beet plantings? I would hope that they could find seed at a seed saver’s exchange, much the way other Michigan gardeners do.  I do worry though, what risks have Michigan farmers taken with their own health by planting extensive crops that will be sprayed with toxic chemicals?

Related articles by Zemanta

• Hey USDA, was the GMO sugar beet illegally approved? (unaskedadvice.wordpress.com)
• Food Labeling Program Halts Over FDA Concern (abcnews.go.com)
• FDA cracks down on inaccurate food labels (cbc.ca)
• SF Calls Out Kellogg’s on Bogus Health Claims for Cocoa Rice Krispies (fooducate.com)
• Kellogg Pulls Immunity Claima From Rice Krispies (abcnews.go.com)
• Sugar beets spur county to reconsider biotech food (seattletimes.nwsource.com)

Frank Morton, a seed farmer in Oregon is spearheading a lawsuit charging the USDA approved Roundup Ready sugar beets without assessing potential environmental impacts, like genetic contamination and herbicide resistance.

Read full Article on Market Place

Seattle Times Article

This fight is directed toward Genetically Modified Organisms (GMO) sugar beets, and it can have a huge impact on Michigan’s sugar beet industry because most of the states sugar beet crop comes from GMO seed.

The problem is that plants like beets can spread their pollen in the wind. This means that a field of GMO sugar beets can combine with an organic or non-GMO field next to it and pass on the GMO traits. GMO sugar beets can also affect table beets and related crops like chard. Monsanto, who owns the patent on the GMO seeds, has sued farmers whose plants took on the GMO traits for patent infringement.

Morton contests, “If biotech traits show up in my seeds, then my seeds are worthless. If my traits show up in conventional or biotech seeds, it’s not a big deal to them, it does not destroy their value.”

Genetically engineered soy beans, and corn are also a concerns for organic farmers.

Zelig Golden, a lawyer with the Center for Food Safety, is moving the court to issue a permanent injunction to halt the sale and planting of GE sugar-beet seeds now and into the future, until the USDA does its job to protect consumers and farmers alike. This can take years to resolve.

The parties meet in court next month. In a similar case, a judge banned Roundup Ready alfalfa; Monsanto’s appealing that decision to the Supreme Court. If there’s a ban on sugar-beet planting nationwide, it’s doubtful there’s enough conventional seed in storage to lay in a crop next spring.

Thinking locally with food and living in Michigan, I was excited to have access to a ready supply of white beet sugar. This meant that I could still have my local cake and eat it too.

Unfortunately there was more to my local cake story. The GMO sugar beets was the elephant in the room I was willfully ignoring in order to justify my 5LB bag of Big Chief brand white sugar. I do not knowingly support and buy GMO foods, so my bag of local white sugar will have to go. I did a half hearted search for organic michigan sugar, but have yet to find any probably because it does not exist.

What is wrong with GMO foods? For one, the whole point of a GMO plant like sugar beets is to allow them to resist the effects of an herbicide. So you are buying food that is sprayed, and not organic. For two, the question of GMO food safety and environmental impact is still not out.

And if a GMO trait can spread to other plants like beets, who is to stay it will not spread to the same or other weeds that they are trying to prevent? We can be creating herbicide resistant super weeds making this whole study a complete waste of effort, and worse than before.

It is unfortunate that sugar beets farmers in Michigan may take a hit if planting comes to a halt because of the lawsuit. But why was a conclusive environmental impact study not done before farmers were allow to grow GMO sugar beets, and why was there no back up plan from the states agriculture extension services to stock pile seed in case these GMO plants were found unsafe? And what is the back up plan for corn and soy for that matter?

The fact that most sugar beets come from GMO seeds that have been modified to resist herbicides. This means that my bag of michigan sugar most likely comes from GMO seeds/plants. There is no way of knowing this for sure because there is currently no labeling laws for GMO produced foods. This is because the GMO industry fought against it, out of a rightful fear that consumers would avoid GMO labeled products. I, for one would like to know if the food that I am eating came from GMO ingredients.

The other end of this is that GMO sugar beets can potential pass traits on to the beets and chard in my home garden. If that happens will a company come after me or my fellow community gardeners with a patent infringement lawsuit? It seems naive to think that they can’t or won’t. Just because we home gardeners are not big farmers or may not live in a big agriculture economically dominated community does not mean that we are safe.