Corruption of Food Production Thread

[Perelandra]

Whole Foods GMO Labeling To Be Mandatory By 2018

Whole Foods has announced that by 2018, all products in U.S. and Canada stores must be labeled if they contain genetically modified organisms (GMOs). This is the first national grocery store to set a deadline from GMO labeling.

“We are putting a stake in the ground on GMO labeling to support the consumer’s right to know,” said Walter Robb, co-CEO of Whole Foods Market, in a press release. “The prevalence of GMOs in the U.S. paired with nonexistent mandatory labeling makes it very difficult for retailers to source non-GMO options and for consumers to choose non-GMO products. Accordingly, we are stepping up our support of certified organic agriculture, where GMOs are not allowed, and we are working together with our supplier partners to grow our non-GMO supply chain to ensure we can continue to provide these choices in the future.”

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/08/whole-foods-gmo-labeling-2018_n_2837754.html?utm_hp_ref=@food123

[conniption]

russia today

'Monsanto Protection Act' slips silently through US Congress

Published: March 26, 2013

The US House of Representatives quietly passed a last-minute addition to the Agricultural Appropriations Bill for 2013 last week - including a provision protecting genetically modified seeds from litigation in the face of health risks.

The rider, which is officially known as the Farmer Assurance Provision, has been derided by opponents of biotech lobbying as the “Monsanto Protection Act,” as it would strip federal courts of the authority to immediately halt the planting and sale of genetically modified (GMO) seed crop regardless of any consumer health concerns.

The provision, also decried as a “biotech rider,” should have gone through the Agricultural or Judiciary Committees for review. Instead, no hearings were held, and the piece was evidently unknown to most Democrats (who hold the majority in the Senate) prior to its approval as part of HR 993, the short-term funding bill that was approved to avoid a federal government shutdown.

Senator John Tester (D-MT) proved to be the lone dissenter to the so-called Monsanto Protection Act, though his proposed amendment to strip the rider from the bill was never put to a vote.

As the US legal system functions today, and largely as a result of prior lawsuits, the USDA is required to complete environmental impact statements (EIS) prior to both the planting and sale of GMO crops. The extent and effectiveness to which the USDA exercises this rule is in itself a source of serious dispute.

The reviews have been the focus of heated debate between food safety advocacy groups and the biotech industry in the past. In December of 2009, for example, Food Democracy Now collected signatures during the EIS commenting period in a bid to prevent the approval of Monsanto’s GMO alfalfa, which many feared would contaminate organic feed used by dairy farmers; it was approved regardless.

Previously discovered pathogens in Monsanto’s Roundup Ready corn and soy are suspected of causing infertility in livestock and to impact the health of plants.

So, just how much of a victory is this for biotech companies like Monsanto? Critics are thus far alarmed by the very way in which the provision made it through Congress -- the rider was introduced anonymously as the larger bill progressed through the Senate Appropriations Committee. Now, groups like the Center for Food Safety are holding Senator Mikulski (D-MD), chairman of that committee, to task and lobbing accusations of a “backroom deal” with the biotech industry.

As the Washington Times points out, the provision’s success is viewed by many as a victory by companies like Syngenta Corp, Cargill, Monsanto and affiliated PACs that have donated $7.5 million to members of Congress since 2009, and $372,000 to members of the Senate Appropriations Committee.

It remains unclear whether the bill’s six-month expiration means that the provision will be short-lived. Regardless, Food Democracy Now has begun a campaign calling on US President Barack Obama to veto the Continuing Resolution spending bill, which seems unlikely as HR 933 includes a sweeping amount of government funding.

*

Food Democracy Now

Tell President Obama to veto the Monsanto Protection Act!

We regret to inform you, but late last week Congress succeeded in passing Section 735, aka the Monsanto Protection Act, in the Continuing Resolution spending bill - HR 933. Once again, Monsanto and the biotech industry have used their lobbying power to undermine your basic rights.

We need you to sign a petition to President Obama and tell him to veto HR 933 and the Monsanto Protection Act. continued

[conniption]

russia today

'Monsanto Protection Act' slips silently through US Congress

Published: March 26, 2013

The US House of Representatives quietly passed a last-minute addition to the Agricultural Appropriations Bill for 2013 last week - including a provision protecting genetically modified seeds from litigation in the face of health risks.

The rider, which is officially known as the Farmer Assurance Provision, has been derided by opponents of biotech lobbying as the “Monsanto Protection Act,” as it would strip federal courts of the authority to immediately halt the planting and sale of genetically modified (GMO) seed crop regardless of any consumer health concerns.

The provision, also decried as a “biotech rider,” should have gone through the Agricultural or Judiciary Committees for review. Instead, no hearings were held, and the piece was evidently unknown to most Democrats (who hold the majority in the Senate) prior to its approval as part of HR 993, the short-term funding bill that was approved to avoid a federal government shutdown.

Senator John Tester (D-MT) proved to be the lone dissenter to the so-called Monsanto Protection Act, though his proposed amendment to strip the rider from the bill was never put to a vote.

As the US legal system functions today, and largely as a result of prior lawsuits, the USDA is required to complete environmental impact statements (EIS) prior to both the planting and sale of GMO crops. The extent and effectiveness to which the USDA exercises this rule is in itself a source of serious dispute.

The reviews have been the focus of heated debate between food safety advocacy groups and the biotech industry in the past. In December of 2009, for example, Food Democracy Now collected signatures during the EIS commenting period in a bid to prevent the approval of Monsanto’s GMO alfalfa, which many feared would contaminate organic feed used by dairy farmers; it was approved regardless.

Previously discovered pathogens in Monsanto’s Roundup Ready corn and soy are suspected of causing infertility in livestock and to impact the health of plants.

So, just how much of a victory is this for biotech companies like Monsanto? Critics are thus far alarmed by the very way in which the provision made it through Congress -- the rider was introduced anonymously as the larger bill progressed through the Senate Appropriations Committee. Now, groups like the Center for Food Safety are holding Senator Mikulski (D-MD), chairman of that committee, to task and lobbing accusations of a “backroom deal” with the biotech industry.

As the Washington Times points out, the provision’s success is viewed by many as a victory by companies like Syngenta Corp, Cargill, Monsanto and affiliated PACs that have donated $7.5 million to members of Congress since 2009, and $372,000 to members of the Senate Appropriations Committee.

It remains unclear whether the bill’s six-month expiration means that the provision will be short-lived. Regardless, Food Democracy Now has begun a campaign calling on US President Barack Obama to veto the Continuing Resolution spending bill, which seems unlikely as HR 933 includes a sweeping amount of government funding.

*

Food Democracy Now

Tell President Obama to veto the Monsanto Protection Act!

We regret to inform you, but late last week Congress succeeded in passing Section 735, aka the Monsanto Protection Act, in the Continuing Resolution spending bill - HR 933. Once again, Monsanto and the biotech industry have used their lobbying power to undermine your basic rights.

We need you to sign a petition to President Obama and tell him to veto HR 933 and the Monsanto Protection Act. continued

russia today

Obama signs 'Monsanto Protection Act' written by Monsanto-sponsored senator
Published time: March 28, 2013

United States President Barack Obama has signed a bill into law that was written in part by the very billion-dollar corporation that will benefit directly from the legislation.

On Tuesday, Pres. Obama inked his name to H.R. 933, a continuing resolution spending bill approved in Congress days earlier. Buried 78 pages within the bill exists a provision that grossly protects biotech corporations such as the California-based Monsanto Company from litigation.

With the president’s signature, agriculture giants that deal with genetically modified organisms (GMOs) and genetically engineered (GE) seeds are given the go-ahead to continue to plant and sell man-made crops, even as questions remain largely unanswered about the health risks these types of products pose to consumers.

In light of approval from the House and Senate, more than 250,000 people signed a petition asking the president to veto the spending bill over the biotech rider tacked on, an item that has since been widely referred to as the “Monsanto Protection Act.”
continued

[Perelandra]

The Extraordinary Science of Addictive Junk Food
Published: February 20, 2013

(snip)What I found, over four years of research and reporting, was a conscious effort — taking place in labs and marketing meetings and grocery-store aisles — to get people hooked on foods that are convenient and inexpensive. I talked to more than 300 people in or formerly employed by the processed-food industry, from scientists to marketers to C.E.O.’s. Some were willing whistle-blowers, while others spoke reluctantly when presented with some of the thousands of pages of secret memos that I obtained from inside the food industry’s operations. What follows is a series of small case studies of a handful of characters whose work then, and perspective now, sheds light on how the foods are created and sold to people who, while not powerless, are extremely vulnerable to the intensity of these companies’ industrial formulations and selling campaigns.(snip)

Link

[elfismiles]

Conservatives Laugh As Liberals Attack President Over Non-Existent ‘Monsanto Protection Act’
2013/03/28
By Nathaniel Downes

If you’ve been on the internet any time since Tuesday, it is likely that you have seen something about what is being called the ‘Monsanto Protection Act.’ It always looks as if it is that the President has signed a bill giving complete immunity to the Missouri based corporation. But even a casual glance into this, and the whole argument falls apart.

What is being referred to is an amendment to the “Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act, 2013″ signed into law on Tuesday. This act was implemented to avoid a government shutdown on Wednesday, by authorizing the president to pay the nations bills through October, when the new fiscal year begins. The particular provision being pointed to in this act is Section 735, within the agricultural portion of the bill. This section reads as follows:

SEC. 735. In the event that a determination of non-regulated status made pursuant to section 411 of the Plant Protection Act is or has been invalidated or vacated, the Secretary of Agriculture shall, notwithstanding any other provision of law, upon request by a farmer, grower, farm operator, or producer, immediately grant temporary permit(s) or temporary deregulation in part, subject to necessary and appropriate conditions consistent with section 411(a) or 412(c) of the Plant Protection Act, which interim conditions shall authorize the movement, introduction, continued cultivation, commercialization and other specifically enumerated activities and requirements, including measures designed to mitigate or minimize potential adverse environmental effects, if any, relevant to the Secretary’s evaluation of the petition for non-regulated status, while ensuring that growers or other users are able to move, plant, cultivate, introduce into commerce and carry out other authorized activities in a timely manner: Provided, That all such conditions shall be applicable only for the interim period necessary for the Secretary to complete any required analyses or consultations related to the petition for non-regulated status: Provided further, That nothing in this section shall be construed as limiting the Secretary’s authority under section 411, 412 and 414 of the Plant Protection Act.

A bit wordy and complex, as laws tend to be. However, this is not a new measure. This particular section is already law, passed as part of the Agriculture Appropriations Bill, and was carried forward when that bill was merged in with numerous other ones to make this current bill. What this particular measure does is allow the Secretary of Agriculture to grant a temporary deregulation status for a crop in the event that the crop is under litigation against the USDA’s approval of deregulation status, for the time period that the case is working through the courts. This means that attempts to damage a competitor, by filing suit against their crop, will not happen. Anybody can file a lawsuit in the United States. It would be incredibly easy for a competing firm to file a lawsuit against such a status for a crop grown by their competition, to effectively freeze that competition out of the market for the years needed for a case to work its way through the courts. This measure simply ensures that will not happen.


This measure also relieves a lot from the USDA’s legal department. Months, and millions of dollars, can be spent fighting injunctions in the courts before the case ever goes before the judge. By this measure, that money can be saved, and the legal proceedings sped up accordingly. Instead of needing up to a year just to address an attempted injunction, the case can proceed much quicker, bypassing this step in the process. This also means that farmers, from the smallest family farms to the largest corporate giant, do not have to live in fear that their crop will be targeted by a competitor.

Researching the origin of the measure finds us going to 2010, when the Supreme Court ruled in Monsanto vs Geertson Seed Farms that lower courts cannot prohibit the planting of crops during the litigation process. This rule is just the codification of the courts ruling, enabling the regulators to have a say in the process. Without it, there would be no process, and companies which do happen to produce a dangerous crop would have a free hand in planting. By codifying this, now the Secretary of Agriculture has final say, and while can grant such a waiver, now can, thanks to the Plant Protection Act which this derives its authority under, also refuse to grant such a waiver. In other words, now there is a protection put in place, while before there was not.

But where did these attacks against the provision come from? You find the origins among the darker corners of the internet, with the shady astroturf groups more commonly associated with organizations like the American Legislative Exchange Council and the Heritage Foundation. Conservative organizations fuel the idea, and let left-wing pundits go into the fight to attack… the bill meant to prevent the government from shutting down. but why Monsanto, why use that label when the bill could as easily apply to ConAgra, US Sugar, or one of hundreds of other agricultural businesses?

It’s because Monsanto is one of the largest corporate supporters of climate change science, and is actively working to help ring the alarm.

The concerns over these crops comes from fear. People instinctively understand sex, and how that produces children. They do not instinctively understand gene splicing, even though that is how sex produces children in the first place. Most people do not have time to go out and understand it, so they label such modified products as “frankenfoods” and build fear upon lack of information, or worse purposeful misinformation fed by other industries who seek to hurt some related cause, such as climate change science. The fact is, some genetically modified crops have been shown to have substantial benefits, by making them more resistant to disease, adding essential nutrients, and even fight climate change. Genetic modification through direct gene splicing has been done since 1970, and is widely understood after decades of research and application.

Even snopes was quick to discredit the claims about the bill, finding it a mixture of fact and fiction, with the main claims of it granting immunity from prosecution as false.

Not only that, but this bill passed both houses of Congress with a filibuster proof majority. Even if it was as bad as some people are claiming the President couldn’t have vetoed it if he wanted to.

The bill as signed did not provide immunity to Monsanto or any other company, it only brought US Code into compliance with the Supreme Courts ruling, while also speeding up the litigation process over unregulated food crops.

Nate_Downes

Nathaniel Downes is the son of a former state representative of New Hampshire, now living in Seattle Washington.

http://www.addictinginfo.org/2013/03/28 ... ction-act/

[Burnt Hill]

Bear in mind that this is an MSM article.

10 things farm stands won’t tell you
Sept. 17, 2012, 10:01 a.m. EDT
Charles Passy, MarketWatch

Tempted by roadside produce? Remember the sour that comes with the sweet. Here are 10 things farm stands won’t tell you.

1. “Call us Farm Stand Inc.”

Ah, the old farm stand, that seasonal roadside wellspring of sweet, ready-to-be-shucked corn, crisp and juicy apples or jugs of real maple syrup. But that humble stand has now become big business—in more ways than one. Spurred by the “eat local” movement, consumers are flocking to stands connected to family farms (and those farms account for fully 96% of the 2.2 million farms in the United States). No less an authority than the U.S. Department of Agriculture calls the trend of selling directly to consumers “an important new opportunity for small and beginning farmers and ranchers to become financially secure.”

But it’s not just the farm-stand movement as a whole that’s gaining ground. Individual stands are also thinking big, with many morphing into year-round, full-scale enterprises--like supermarkets in touristy packaging. Such “stands,” which can have annual sales in the millions of dollars, offer everything from souvenirs to prepared meals. At the Avila Valley Barn in San Luis Obispo, Calif., for example, raspberries and blackberries share space with packaged gourmet goods, bakeware, barbecue accessories, cookbooks and even educational toys. The stand says on its website that it’s trying to re-create a bygone era of country living: “It makes one feel that they have stepped back in time--to the simpler, sweeter days of yesteryear.”

For some eat-local purists and old-school farmers, there’s nothing simple about this. They argue that the bigger-is-better thinking can go against the connect-with-the-soil spirit of the classic stand. “It’s very off-putting to see a farm stand without very much ‘farm’ to it,” says Sara Trunzo, the food and farm projects coordinator for Unity College in Maine. But stand operators counter that consumers are voting with their dollars--if they didn’t like what was happening, they wouldn’t be buying. Plus, in an age of $90 theme park tickets, stand operators say they offer family fun at a relatively low cost. At the Avila Valley Barn, the hay rides are actually free. “We just want people to experience agriculture,” says proprietor Debbie Avila.

2. “It’s fresh from a farm--just not this one.”

New England farmers don’t devote acreage to citrus. South Florida farmers aren’t in the apple business. But these days, shoppers shouldn’t be surprised to see out-of-area produce at their area farm stands. For that matter, they shouldn’t be surprised to learn that local specialties come from other local farms: The fact remains that many stands are a clearinghouse for all sorts (and all sources) of produce and other farm fare.

Critics charge that this approach can border on the deceptive, since consumers come to a farm stand expecting to buy from that very farm. They also say it takes away some of the local flavor--literally--that is associated with farm stands. “I cringe when I see a whole stand’s worth of goods from somewhere else,” says Frank McClelland, a renowned New England chef who’s also the proprietor of the Apple Street Farm in Essex, Mass. But even McClelland says there can be a certain rationale to offering select items from other farms: It provides both convenience and quality to the customer. For example, knowing that his farm can’t produce enough honey to meet demand, he sources additional honey from a nearby farm whose product he trusts. But for some other farm stands, there’s a purely economical logic; that is, they can’t make enough money just selling their own product.

3. “And what we grow may not be organic, either.”

While there’s plenty of current debate as to whether organic produce is actually healthier to consume [ ], the fact remains that it’s still in demand. And that demand may be augmenting the popularity of farm stands, since these local purveyors of produce and other goods are often tied to small-scale farms that adhere to organic practices. It’s all part of the movement embracing a way of eating that’s more socially and environmentally conscious and that’s theoretically healthier by virtue of being largely pesticide-free.

But here’s the truth: “Local” and “organic” are far from synonymous [duh]. In fact, small-scale farmers may find it especially challenging to seek out organic certification, say experts, because it adds considerable expense to operations that are often fairly lean in the first place. And it’s not just the costs of the actual production--organic farming can be very labor intensive--it is also the cost for the certification itself. Frank McClelland of Apple Street Farm in Essex, Mass., says he’d have to spend $3,000 on the paperwork in the first year alone. For now, he’s not bothering with it, despite the fact that he’s already farming organically, he says.

The take-away for consumers: If they place a high premium on organic, they shouldn’t hesitate to ask about certification—or, at the very least, to inquire about the farm’s growing practices. And even if a farm stand doesn’t sell organic produce, consumers may be able to take comfort in the fact they’re reducing their carbon footprint by not shopping for items that have been shipped across the country.

4. “So much for that crisp apple.”

It’s easy for foodie-minded shoppers to see supermarket produce as second best compared with the straight-from-the-farm variety. But supermarkets have one distinct advantage over roadside stands--namely, refrigeration. By keeping certain items at the ideal temperatures and conditions--apples are best at 32 degrees Fahrenheit and 90% humidity, while lettuces and some other greens are best kept slightly moist, according to the Cornell University Cooperative Extension--markets are able to ensure a degree of freshness and crispiness. At roadside stands, “storage” often extends to no more than keeping those apples on display in a basket--with no temperature or humidity control. The result, say experts, is that the apple starts to lose quality within days of being picked.

5. “You’re not necessarily getting our best produce.”

A roadside stand can be an important source of income to a farm, but it’s rarely the only one. These days, farms build relationships with all sorts of “customers” -- produce wholesalers, restaurants, even other farms. They also bring their goods to large, urban farmers’ markets or sell them through community-supported agriculture programs, popularly known as CSAs (essentially, a way of offering “shares” of that year’s crops). For consumers, this can be good news: A farm that can make money in different ways is a farm that’s going to be around in the long run, say experts. But it also means that the roadside shoppers might not always be getting the farm’s choicest offerings. “Some restaurants are willing to pay to have first pick,” says Will Gilson, a Boston-area chef who also runs a seven-acre vegetable and herb farm. Other reasons that farmers love to sell to restaurants: “It’s consistent money and it’s large-quantity orders,” Gilson adds.

6. “This place is a zoo.”

For a select number of mega stands, it’s not just about fruits or vegetables—or even souvenirs. It’s about the stand as seasonal theme park, especially during the fall harvest. Think hayrides, corn mazes and, yes, petting zoos--all leading up through Halloween and occasionally beyond. At the Bates Nut Farm in Valley Center, Calif., for example, almost every fall weekend day is set aside for a different event, from a Farm Education Day to a costume contest. The farm, which says it no longer grows any nuts on site (it’s more cost-effective to source them from large California growers), also hosts dog shows and rents out its facilities for weddings. Naturally, critics decry this “agritainment” trend for the same reason they decry that stands are selling more than just produce--ultimately, it puts the focus on something other than agriculture. But operators of large stands say it’s all in good fun and does help to promote farming in a broader sense.

7. “Wanna pick your own? It’ll cost you.”

Some farms go beyond the stand and invite the public into their fields to pick their own produce. But this cherished tradition has gotten a new twist: A few of these farms are now charging picking fees--as much as $10-plus per person. The farms say it’s a necessary cost to cover what pickers eat in the fields. But pickers say it’s turned a trip to the farm into an unexpectedly expensive outing. The Consumerist.com, a consumer advocacy site, shared the story of one picker’s recent experience: The cost at one orchard worked out to be more than $20 per person, including a $13.50 picking fee (not mentioned on the orchard’s website) and a $7 charge for a small bag of pick-them-yourself apples. The Consumerist.com’s assessment: “Sometimes the businesses out to mislead you and rip you off aren’t monolithic global corporations. They’re a farm in the next town over.”

8. “We fight for our right to child labor.”

Farm stands may represent agriculture in its most folksy form. That doesn’t stop the family farms behind them from playing political hardball, however. In recent years, family farmers have fought political battles over any number of issues, from lobbying in favor of giving undocumented farm workers legal status to lobbying against further strengthening of child labor laws (many farmers employ their children). Critics have questioned whether small farmers have the public’s best interests at heart. For example, when the farmers pushed back on regulations regarding food safety, saying they couldn’t afford to put the same controls in place as larger farms, Quality Digest, a trade publication that covers regulatory issues, challenged that notion: “Although one can sympathize with the small farmer trying to do business without the interference of Big Brother, [the] argument may not carry much weight. The problem with the food safety issue is that defective quality can quite literally mean death.” But farm-industry advocates and lobbyists counter that family farms are often at risk of being over-regulated, given the challenging economics of small-scale agriculture. The legislative situation “just gets out of control,” says Don Parrish, director of congressional relations at the American Farm Bureau, a lobbying group.

9. “Just try finding us.”

The most prominent roadside stands try to use a choice location to their advantage. Many farm stands and you-pick operations, however, are deep into farm country—and are hard to locate, even with a GPS. On PickYourOwn.org, which lists farms throughout the country, customer comments tell stories of wayward rural journeys. Farmers feel the frustration, too: One California grower volunteered: “When you are ready to come, email me and I will send you a map. Do not trust Internet mapping services or GPS.” In that vein, PickYourOwn.org suggests that visitors always contact the farm in advance--not just for directions, but also because “weather, heavy picking and business conditions can always affect [a farm stand’s] hours and crops!”

10. “We might not make it.”

At its peak, in the mid-1930s, America was home to nearly 7 million farms. The decline since then speaks to the fact that farmers are selling out--in more ways than one--because of the spread of Big Agriculture (big farms looking to gobble up small farms) and the suburbanization of rural land. When South Florida farm stand owner Robert Moehling was asked in 2006 about what types of things farmers in his area were growing, he said matter-of-factly: “Houses.” And while the real-estate bust of recent years has softened demand, many farmers say they still consider selling the farm--it is almost always a surer way to make money than working the land.

Of course, for all the farmers who want to cash out, there are always a few ready to enter the arena and open their own farm stand in the process. Take Dylan Tomine, a conservation advocate and author who purchased a you-pick blueberry farm a year ago on Washington’s Bainbridge Island (a suburb of Seattle) and now runs it with his family. While he concedes that selling the farm “is the backup plan for most farmers,” he says he sees children and their parents picking in his fields and feels a sense of satisfaction that’s hard to equal. “We’re not just selling blueberries. We’re selling participation in your food,” he concludes.

I think this is a bit hard on the Farm Stands from my rural perspective, but its always buyer beware I suppose. We know most of the local vendors though, and have even sold our own stuff.Last summer I did stop at a small stand I had never seen before, the lady tending looked trustworthy- I bought a dozen ears of corn without checking for sweetness. Turns out it was field corn-pure starch- no sugar. Tried to take it back but she was long gone. Just shows that I can get ripped off even in a small communtity where everyone knows everyone else.
What I was wanting to get at though was that locally almost everyone I know are expanding (or starting) their gardens- and switching to heirloom seeds. We are adding a full acre, pray for rain in a couple of months!

[conniption]

Conservatives Laugh As Liberals Attack President Over Non-Existent ‘Monsanto Protection Act’
2013/03/28
By Nathaniel Downes

If you’ve been on the internet any time since Tuesday, it is likely that you have seen something about what is being called the ‘Monsanto Protection Act.’ It always looks as if it is that the President has signed a bill giving complete immunity to the Missouri based corporation. But even a casual glance into this, and the whole argument falls apart.

Blah blah blah...etc.

Nate_Downes

Nathaniel Downes is the son of a former state representative of New Hampshire, now living in Seattle Washington.

http://www.addictinginfo.org/2013/03/28 ... ction-act/

*

"Conservatives Laugh..."

Oh noooo!!!



Not again!!!

*

Most of the comments following Nathaniel Downes' article are not on board with what he has to say. Such as:

Robert Livingston · Works at East New York Railroad
GMO foods are inherently different from crops that are selectively bred. That is a HUGE error in this article. Gene insertion creates plants that secrete their own pesticides (Bt). You cannot make a plant do that with selective breeding.
Reply · 23 ·
· Thursday at 1:15pm

Tabatha Hibbs · Top Commenter · Works at Adjunct at Connors State College
Mr. Downes, while I am sure that you had good intentions with this article, your own understanding of genetics, gene splicing, and genetically modified organisms is too incomplete for you to take a public forum and tell everyone that these products are nothing to worry about. For example, children are not produced by gene splicing. The rearrangement of genetic material that occurs during sexual reproduction can in no informed way be compared to the genetic manipulation that Monsanto and others engage in. I am a biologist with a good deal of education in genetics. There is very little that is safe about the sort of gene splicing and genetic modification that Monsanto is doing. Please inform yourself more thoroughly on the topic before publishing another article. Possibly, you might want to have the discussion with someone who is not on Monsanto payroll.
Reply · 75 ·
· Thursday at 1:16pm

Lauren Mashburn · Intern at Danville/Boyle County Convention and Visitor's Bureau
AMEN SISTA
Reply · 13 ·
· Thursday at 1:28pm

Dawn Gifford · Top Commenter · University of Maryland, College Park
Amen!
Reply · 8 ·
· Thursday at 2:33pm
*

Funk You · Top Commenter · Corralitos, California
Thank you for clearing up this mater....However, you are NOT going to convince me that Monsanto has anyone's best interest in mind except their own. And I for one will NOT stop fighting against them and all that they do. Mr Downes, you sound like a Monsanto apologist and it's not very 'flattering'.
" The fact is, genetically modified crops have substantial benefits, by making them more resistant to disease, adding essential nutrients, and even fight climate change"....is NOT the facts I've seen and heard from REAL farmers all across the globe.
Reply · 17 ·
· Thursday at 1:19pm

Nathaniel Downes
I never said that Monsanto has anyones best interest. They're a corporation, their best interest is ultimately down to what will produce the most profit. But you should not make up things in order to try and make a case against them, or any company. It only discredits the valid arguments by association.
Reply · 3 ·
· Thursday at 2:14pm

Funk You · Top Commenter · Corralitos, California
Nathaniel Downes, the quotation, in quotation marks, was your comment, not mine, that was makin stuff up.
As for the 'other stuff' in your article, I did thank you for clearing this up. Thanks again for that.
Reply · 3 ·
· Thursday at 2:31pm
*

Kendell Ramm
I still don't know who was saying that the rider or bill was actually called the "Monsanto Protection Act". It always has been a name given by people opposed to its passage. I guarantee you that anyone posting about it already knew that. The article was completely misleading and ridiculous.
Reply · 2 ·
· Thursday at 9:11pm
*

Medley Alicia Byers · Vista University at United Way of Central Kentucky
I am scientifically literate, I understand how gene splicing works, and how natural reproduction varies from putting fish DNA in corn plants. I've also heard about how Monsanto has used their enormous power and wealth to bring down family farms that don't want to use Roundup Ready seed. Though the Monsanto Protection Act may have been a red herring, the danger from Monsanto is real.
Reply · 19 ·
· Thursday at 1:31pm

Nathaniel Downes
Absolutely, it is. Monsanto is a dangerous company, which wields incredible power. To grab onto a red herring argument, however, will only discredit legitimate arguments, such as how their pesticides are destroying beehives across the country, an issue which I (a beekeeper) am intimately familiar.
Reply · 9 ·
· Thursday at 2:17pm

Michaele Stephens Scott
Nathaniel Downes, if your above statement is true where is that line of thought expressed in your article...you know, how dangerous Monsanto and their ilk is? I've read your article twice now and you still sound like Monsanto's new date...madly in love. The warm and fuzzy Monsanto. The caring Monsanto. Yea, right. You did NOT write an article about "red herring argument", instead your article sang the false praises of a company that is (along with its ilk) trying to take control of the world's food supply and not caring that it is poisoning people, other life, the planet. Which, I might add, makes it sooooo hard to believe they give a hoot about the climate change. Their actions speak louder than their words and unfortunately your words simply seem to support Monsanto.
Reply · 18 ·
· Thursday at 2:35pm

...and there are nearly 300 more comments where those came from.

No one is buying it, Mr. Downes.

_________

ibtimes

'Monsanto Protection Act': 5 Terrifying Things To Know About The HR 933 Provision

By Connor Adams Sheets | March 27 2013 3:03 PM

The "Monsanto Protection Act" is the name opponents of the Farmer Assurance Provision have given to this terrifying piece of policy, and it's a fitting moniker given its shocking content.

President Barack Obama signed a spending bill, HR 933, into law on Tuesday that includes language that has food and consumer advocates and organic farmers up in arms over their contention that the so-called "Monsanto Protection Act" is a giveaway to corporations that was passed under the cover of darkness.

There's a lot being said about it, but here are five terrifying facts about the Farmer Assurance Provision -- Section 735 of the spending bill -- to get you acquainted with the reasons behind the ongoing uproar:

1.) The "Monsanto Protection Act" effectively bars federal courts from being able to halt the sale or planting of controversial genetically modified (aka GMO) or genetically engineered (GE) seeds, no matter what health issues may arise concerning GMOs in the future. The advent of genetically modified seeds -- which has been driven by the massive Monsanto Company -- and their exploding use in farms across America came on fast and has proved a huge boon for Monsanto's profits.

But many anti-GMO folks argue there have not been enough studies into the potential health risks of this new class of crop. Well, now it appears that even if those studies are completed and they end up revealing severe adverse health effects related to the consumption of genetically modified foods, the courts will have no ability to stop the spread of the seeds and the crops they bear.

2.) The provision's language was apparently written in collusion with Monsanto. Lawmakers and companies working together to craft legislation is by no means a rare occurrence in this day and age. But the fact that Sen. Roy Blunt, Republican of Missouri, actually worked with Monsanto on a provision that in effect allows them to keep selling seeds, which can then go on to be planted, even if it is found to be harmful to consumers, is stunning. It's just another example of corporations bending Congress to their will, and it's one that could have dire risks for public health in America.

3.) Many members of Congress were apparently unaware that the "Monsanto Protection Act" even existed within the bill they were voting on. HR 933 was a spending bill aimed at averting a government shutdown and ensuring that the federal government would continue to be able to pay its bills. But the Center for Food Safety maintains that many Democrats in Congress were not even aware that the provision was in the legislation:

“In this hidden backroom deal, Sen. [Barbara] Mikulski turned her back on consumer, environmental and farmer protection in favor of corporate welfare for biotech companies such as Monsanto,” Andrew Kimbrell, executive director of the Center for Food Safety, said in a statement. “This abuse of power is not the kind of leadership the public has come to expect from Sen. Mikulski or the Democrat Majority in the Senate.”

4.) The President did nothing to stop it, either. On Tuesday, Obama signed HR 933 while the rest of the nation was fixated on gay marriage, as the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral argument concerning California's Proposition 8. But just because most of the nation and the media were paying attention to gay marriage doesn't mean that others were not doing their best to express their opposition to the "Monsanto Protection Act." In fact, more than 250,000 voters signed a petition opposing the provision. And Food Democracy Now protesters even took their fight straight to Obama, protesting in front of the White House against Section 735 of the bill. He signed it anyway.

5.) It sets a terrible precedent. Though it will only remain in effect for six months until the government finds another way to fund its operations, the message it sends is that corporations can get around consumer safety protections if they get Congress on their side. Furthermore, it sets a precedent that suggests that court challenges are a privilege, not a right.

“I think any time you tweak with the ability of the public to seek redress from the courts, you create a huge risk,” Seattle attorney Bill Marler -- who has represented victims of foodborne illness in successful lawsuits against corporations -- told the New York Daily News.

_____________

smallfootprintfamily

The Difference Between Hybrid Seeds and GMOs

by Dawn Gifford

It is common for people who support or defend genetically modified foods (GMOs) to argue something along the lines of, “What’s the big deal? Humans have been genetically modifying plants for thousands of years.”

Unfortunately, this claim can only be made by someone who either doesn’t understand seed breeding, or who is outright trying to deceive you. Here’s why…

Today, seeds are bred in only one of three ways: 1) in an open pollinated environment, 2) through a hybrid cross, and 3) through genetic modification. Let’s look at each, one at a time. continued

[hanshan]

...

http://www.ucsf.edu/news/2009/06/8187/obesity-and-metabolic-syndrome-driven-fructose-sugar-diet

Sugar Is a Poison, Says UCSF Obesity Expert

By Jeffrey Norris on June 25, 2009
Follow @JeffreyNorris1

The rise of obesity is usually blamed on too much eating and not enough exercising, but Robert Lustig, MD, a UCSF pediatric neuroendocrinologist, asks us to look beyond the obvious.

Yes, more Americans are overweight today than 30 years ago. Kids are still getting heavier, compared with prior generations of kids. That leads some UCSF researchers to warn that heart disease and other health problems will grow in future decades.

But behaviors that some might refer to as gluttony and sloth are merely consequences of the true cause of the epidemic, Lustig says. Food was just as abundant before obesity’s ascendance. The problem is the increase in sugar consumption. Sugar both drives fat storage and makes the brain think it is hungry, setting up a “vicious cycle,” according to Lustig.


Robert Lustig, MD
More specifically, it is fructose that is harmful, according to Lustig. Fructose is a component of the two most popular sugars. One is table sugar — sucrose. The other is high-fructose corn syrup. High-fructose corn syrup has become ubiquitous in soft drinks and many other processed foods.

Lustig presented his case against fructose in a recent UCSF Mini Medical School course on diet and nutrition, part of a series sponsored by the Osher Lifelong Learning Institute. Audience members may have been surprised to hear such unequivocally strong statements from a researcher. Lustig framed the obesity epidemic as a societal issue that pits the food-selling agenda of federal agencies and profit-seeking behavior of major corporations against public health needs.

Lustig quit working in the lab a decade ago. Now he spends more time with pediatric patients. He is on the front lines of the world’s weight woes, treating kids who already are obese, a condition that sets the stage for health problems that begin long before these children become adults.

Lustig still conducts clinical research. He evaluates dietary lifestyle, as well as pharmacologic interventions that might hold the pounds at bay. He tracks down associations between diet, lifestyle and health outcomes in an effort to identify biological mechanisms that will explain them.

Insulin and Leptin
Lustig’s own groundbreaking studies more than a decade ago stimulated the development of his controversial ideas about metabolism and biological feedback in weight control. One not-yet-popular idea is that, calorie for calorie, sugar causes more insulin resistance in the liver than other edibles. The pancreas then has to release more insulin to satisfy the liver’s needs. High insulin levels, in turn, interfere with the brain’s receipt of signals from a hormone called leptin, secreted by fat cells, Lustig believes.

In the 1990s, Lustig worked with children diagnosed with hypothalamic obesity, a disorder that can occur after brain tumor surgery. The children were making more insulin than was necessary for normal energy storage in fat cells. Lustig thought the kids were not receiving signals from leptin, which helps send a message that the appetite has been sated.

Lustig concluded that the children’s brains were fooled into thinking that they were starving. Lustig administered a drug called octreotide, known to block insulin release. Insulin levels fell; the children ate less, lost weight, spontaneously became more active and improved their quality of life.

Lustig tried the same treatment with obese adults, and found that a subset responded in the same way as the children with hypothalamic obesity.

Eating stimulates secretion of insulin and leptin. The conventional view holds that insulin, like leptin, feeds back in the brain to limit food intake, Lustig explains. But Lustig does not think that chronically elevated insulin levels feed back negatively to curb eating. Instead, chronically elevated insulin blocks leptin’s negative feedback signal, Lustig believes. “Most people think insulin does the same thing as leptin,” he says. “I think it does just the opposite.”

Lustig believes that fructose generates greater insulin resistance than other foodstuffs, and that fructose calories, therefore, fail to blunt appetite in the same way as other foods.

A Calorie Is Not Just a Calorie
Lustig also is at odds with mainstream scientific viewpoints when it comes to explaining how fructose is shunted through biochemical pathways and converted into fat and other molecules.

Unlike conventional calorie counters, Lustig does not believe all food calories have the same impact on fat storage and energy expenditure, regardless of whether they come from fat, protein or carbohydrate. Fructose, a type of carbohydrate, is not metabolized like other foodstuffs, and not even like glucose, the other major carbohydrate, Lustig says.

In addition, Lustig claims that fructose is just as bad as alcohol in causing fat storage in the liver — and in causing fatty liver disease.

Lustig advances these controversial ideas primarily by citing already published studies, most of them by other researchers. But he also tries to enlist bench scientists in research collaborations in the hopes that additional studies will prove to others that these ideas are correct.

Sugar No Better Than Fat
Each sucrose molecule consists of one molecule of fructose joined to one molecule of glucose. In the gut, these two components are quickly split apart. High-fructose corn syrup is a less expensive mixture of glucose and fructose. There is no point in belaboring the difference, Lustig says. “High-fructose corn syrup and sucrose are exactly the same,” Lustig says. “They’re equally bad. They’re both poison in high doses.”

Over the past century, Americans have increased their fructose consumption from 15 grams per day to 75 grams per day or more, Lustig explains. The trend accelerated beginning about three decades ago, when cheap, easy-to-transport high-fructose corn syrup became widely available.

Much of processed food labeled “reduced fat” instead has sugar added to make it more palatable, Lustig says. But when it comes to harmful health effects, sugar is worse than fat, he claims. Consumption of either results in elevated levels of artery-clogging fats being made by the liver and deposited in the bloodstream. But fructose causes even further damage to the liver and to structural proteins of the body while fomenting excessive caloric consumption, Lustig says.

Four Simple Guidelines
Lustig prescribes four simple guidelines for parents coping with kids who are too heavy:

Get rid of every sugared liquid in the house. Kids should drink only water and milk.
Provide carbohydrates associated with fiber.
Wait 20 minutes before serving second portions.
Have kids buy their “screen time” minute-for-minute with physical activity.
Fructose is abundant in fruit. Fruit is fine, Lustig says, but we should think twice before drinking juice or feeding it to our kids. The fiber in whole fruit contributes to a sense of fullness. Lustig says it is rare to see a child eat more than one orange, but it is common for kids to consume much more sugar and calories as orange juice.

Eating fiber also results in less carbohydrate being absorbed in the gut, Lustig notes. In addition, he says, fiber consumption allows the brain to receive a satiety signal sooner than it would otherwise, so we stop eating sooner.

Exercise burns only a modest amount of calories, Lustig notes. But it does have other benefits. Exercise improves insulin sensitivity in skeletal muscle, lowering insulin levels in the bloodstream. Exercise reduces stress and, therefore, reduces stress-induced eating, according to Lustig. Lastly, exercise increases metabolic rate.

The directive to balance active play with computer, video and TV time is the most difficult one to comply with, Lustig says. But failure to limit sugar intake appears to be the most predictive of poor weight control in children, he adds.

“You are not what you eat; you are what you do with what you eat,” Lustig concludes. “And what you do with fructose is particularly dangerous.”

Related Links:
UCSF Mini Medical School for the Public
UCTV

Childhood Obesity: Adrift in the “Limbic Triangle”
Michelle L. Mietus-Snyder and Robert H. Lustig
Annual Review of Medicine 59:147-162 (February 2008)

...

[Sounder]

http://www.momsacrossamerica.com/stunni ... us_non_gmo

The claims that "There is no difference between GMO corn and NON Gmo corn" are false. Yesterday while on a playdate at the lake, Vince from De Dell Seed Company, Canada's only NON GMO corn seed company called me to support the march and Americans finding out about GMOs. He emailed me this stunning report, clearly showing the nutritional value difference between GMO corn and NON GMO corn. I was floored. And at the same time, not totally surprised because Glyphosate draws out the vital nutrients of living things and GMO corn is covered with it.

The important thing to note in these deficiencies is that these are exactly the deficiencies in a human being that lead to susceptibility to sickness, disorders and cancer. People who have osteoporosis are low in calcium and magnesium, people who have cancer are low in maganese. The list goes on and on.

GMO Corn has 14 ppm of Calcium and NON GMO corn has 6130 ppm. 437 X more.

GMO corn has 2 ppm of Magnesium and NON GMO corn has 113ppm. 56 X more.

GMO corn has 2 ppm of Manganese and NON GMO corn has 14ppm. 7X more.

Look at the levels of Formaldehyde and Glyphosate IN the corn! The EPA standards for Glyphosate in water in America is .7ppm. In Europe it is .2 ppm. Tests showed organ damage to animals at .1ppm of Glyphosate in water. This corn has 13 ppm!

In another study that Dr. Huber reported, on Elizabeth Dougherty's Talk Radio, .97 ppm of formeldehyde showed to be toxic in ingestion to animals. This corn has 200X that! That is why the animals , given a choice will not eat it at all, they can smell the formeldehyde!

http://www.momsacrossamerica.com/more_i ... son_report

why many people have adverse reactions to high fructose corn syrup....

and may explain why the USA now has the lowest birth rate in recorded history ( 63 of every 1000 child bearing women:Sierra Club mag) and the steepest decline is from immigrant women who eat high levels of GMO corn.

The 2012 Corn Comparison report shows GMO corn contains Glyphosate which chelates (or holds/restricts) the vital nutrients in any living thing and has been shown to be toxic at .1 ppm and is present at 13ppm in this corn. This report shows formeldehyde at 200X More than what has been shown to be toxic in animals.

There have also been many comments that this report is not true. I wish it weren't true. The people who say it is not true, however are people who work in the Genetic Engineering field and want to protect their science. I get that. If you question it, please request that Monsanto runs an independent study or show their own data. We suspect they have this data already, as they pressured the EPA to raise the EPA standard of Glyphosate from 6.2 to 13ppm the year before this report came out. They also had the Monsanto Protection Act rider passed in the nick of time from when this information was posted. We believe they knew harm could come from their GMO corn and had the protection act passed to pre-empt lawsuits. What do you think?

Yeah, GMO's are going to feed the starving billions, could someone tell that one to us again?

[Sounder]

http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Engda ... n_SOD.html

The Rockefeller Foundation created the so-called Green Revolution, out of a trip to Mexico in 1946 by Nelson Rockefeller and former New Deal Secretary of Agriculture and founder of the Pioneer Hi-Bred Seed Company, Henry Wallace.

The Green Revolution purported to solve the world hunger problem to a major degree in Mexico, India and other select countries where Rockefeller worked. Rockefeller Foundation agronomist, Norman Borlaug, won a Nobel Peace Prize for his work, hardly something to boast about with the likes of Henry Kissinger sharing the same.

In reality, as it years later emerged, the Green Revolution was a brilliant Rockefeller family scheme to develop a globalized agribusiness which they then could monopolize just as they had done in the world oil industry beginning a half century before. As Henry Kissinger declared in the 1970’s, ‘If you control the oil you control the country; if you control food, you control the population.’

Agribusiness and the Rockefeller Green Revolution went hand-in-hand. They were part of a grand strategy which included Rockefeller Foundation financing of research for the development of genetic engineering of plants and animals a few years later.

John H. Davis had been Assistant Agriculture Secretary under President Dwight Eisenhower in the early 1950’s. He left Washington in 1955 and went to the Harvard Graduate School of Business, an unusual place for an agriculture expert in those days. He had a clear strategy. In 1956, Davis wrote an article in the Harvard Business Review in which he declared that “the only way to solve the so-called farm problem once and for all, and avoid cumbersome government programs, is to progress from agriculture to agribusiness.” He knew precisely what he had in mind, though few others had a clue back then--- a revolution in agriculture production that would concentrate control of the food chain in corporate multinational hands, away from the traditional family farmer.3

A crucial aspect driving the interest of the Rockefeller Foundation and US agribusiness companies was the fact that the Green Revolution was based on proliferation of new hybrid seeds in developing markets. One vital aspect of hybrid seeds was their lack of reproductive capacity. Hybrids had a built in protection against multiplication. Unlike normal open pollinated species whose seed gave yields similar to its parents, the yield of the seed borne by hybrid plants was significantly lower than that of the first generation.

That declining yield characteristic of hybrids meant farmers must normally buy seed every year in order to obtain high yields. Moreover, the lower yield of the second generation eliminated the trade in seed that was often done by seed producers without the breeder’s authorization. It prevented the redistribution of the commercial crop seed by middlemen.

If the large multinational seed companies were able to control the parental seed lines in house, no competitor or farmer would be able to produce the hybrid. The global concentration of hybrid seed patents into a handful of giant seed companies, led by DuPont’s Pioneer Hi-Bred and Monsanto’s Dekalb laid the ground for the later GMO seed revolution.4

In effect, the introduction of modern American agricultural technology, chemical fertilizers and commercial hybrid seeds all made local farmers in developing countries, particularly the larger more established ones, dependent on foreign, mostly US agribusiness and petro-chemical company inputs. It was a first step in what was to be a decades-long, carefully planned process.

Yeah, big daddy's gonna fix things alright.


Bow down to the one you serve.

[seemslikeadream]

Land 'grabs' expand to Europe as big business blocks entry to farming
Land rights not just issue for developing world as report shows public subsidies help a few firms 'grab' vast tracts of EU land
guardian.co.uk, Wednesday 17 April 2013 12.19 EDT

Vast tracts of land in Europe are being "grabbed" by large companies, speculators, wealthy foreign buyers and pension funds in a similar way to in developing countries, according to a major new report.

Chinese corporations, Middle Eastern sovereign wealth and hedge funds, as well as Russian oligarchs and giant agribusiness have all stepped up land acquisitions in the past decade in a process that the report says is preventing ordinary people farming, and concentrating agriculture and land wealth in few hands.

According to research by the Transnational Institute, Via Campesina and others, half of all farmland in the EU is now concentrated in the 3% of large farms that are more than 100 hectares (247 acres) in size. In some EU countries, land ownership is as unequal as it is in Brazil, Colombia and the Philippines.

Although peasant farmers and smallholders have been moving off the land for decades, speculators and commodity crop farmers are taking over vast tracts of land, says the 200-page report.

This is seen widely in former Soviet states, say the 25 authors in 11 countries. In Ukraine, 10 giant agro-holdings now control about 2.8m hectares. One oligarch alone controls more than 500,000 hectares. Chinese companies have moved into Bulgaria on a large scale and Middle Eastern companies are now major producers in Romania.

The concentration of land ownership is speeding up. In Germany, 1.2m land holdings in 1966-67 shrank to just 299,100 farms by 2010. Of these, the land area covered by farms of less than two hectares shrank from 123,670 hectares in 1990 to just 20,110 in 2007.

In Italy, 33,000 farms now cover 11m hectares, and in France more than 60,000 hectares of agricultural land are lost each year to make space for roads, supermarkets and urban growth. In Andalusia, Spain, the number of farms has dropped by more than two-thirds to under 1m in 2007. In 2010, 2% of landowners owned half of the land.

None of the new research was done in Britain, which has some of the highest concentrations of land ownership anywhere in the world, with 70% of land reportedly owned by less than 1% of the population.

"This is an unprecedented dynamic of land concentration and creeping land grabbing. It has worsened the existing situation where many young people want to stay in or take up farming but cannot maintain or gain access to land," said Professor Dr Jan Douwe van der Ploeg of Wageningen University, a member of the research team.

The authors argue that the "land grab" has been fuelled by the common agricultural policy (CAP), which distributes one-third of all EU subsidies to farmers each year, but the funds have been captured by large-scale farmers.

"In Italy in 2011, 0.29% of farms accessed 18% of total CAP incentives, and 0.0001 of these, or 150 farms, cornered 6% of all subsidies. In Spain, 75% of all the subsidies were taken by just 16% of the largest farmers. In Hungary in 2009, 8.6% of farms cornered 72% of all agricultural subsidies," said Van der Ploeg.

"The three most pressing land issues in Europe today are land concentration, land grabbing and inability of young people to maintain or gain access to land to enter sustainable farming – interlinked, triangular land issues quite similar to the ones we see in Africa, Latin America and Asia today."

The report suggests that, as in many developing countries, there is strong opposition to land "grabbing" in Europe. There have been reports of communities occupying land. In Andalusia, landless farmers are occupying land collectively and cultivating it. In Vienna, young people are squatting on fertile urban land.

"Land needs to be seen again as a public good. We must reduce the commodification of land and instead promote public management of this common resource on which we all depend," said Jeanne Verlinden of the European Co-ordination Via Campesina. "Priority should be given to the use of land for smallholder and peasant agriculture and food production, rather than handing over land to those private property commercial interests."

[conniption]

Zcommunications

We Don’t Need Genetically Engineered Bananas For Iron Deficiency

By Vandana Shiva
Saturday, April 27, 2013

The latest insanity from the genetic engineers is to push GMO bananas on India for reducing iron deficiency in Indian women.

Nature has given us a cornucopia of biodiversity, rich in nutrients. Malnutrition and nutrient deficiency results from destroying biodiversity, and with it rich sources of nutrition.

The Green Revolution has spread monocultures of chemical rice and wheat, driving out biodiversity from our farms and diets.

And what survived as spontaneous crops like the amaranth greens and chenopodium (bathua) which are rich in iron were sprayed with poisons and herbicides. Instead of being seen as iron rich and vitamin rich gifts, they were treated as “weeds”. A Monsanto representative once said that Genetically Engineered crops resistant to their propriety herbicide Roundup killed the weeds that “steal the Sunshine”. And their RoundUp Ads in India tell women “Liberate yourself, use Roundup”. This is not a recipe for liberation, but being trapped in malnutrition.

As the “Monoculture of the Mind” took over, biodiversity disappeared from our farms and our food. The destruction of biodiverse rich cultivation and diets has given us the malnutrition crisis, with 75% women now suffering from iron deficiency.

Our indigenous biodiversity offers rich sources of iron. Amaranth has 11.0 mg per 100gm of food, buckwheat has 15.5,neem has 25.3,bajra has 8.0,rice bran 35.0,rice flakes 20.0bengal gram roasted 9.5,Bengal gram leaves 23.8 ,cowpea 8.6,horse gram6.77, amaranth greens have upto 38.5,karonda 39.1,lotus stem 60.6, coconut meal 69.4,niger seeds 56.7,cloves 11.7,cumin seeds 11.7.mace 12.3,mango powder (amchur) 45.2,pippali 62.1,poppy seeds 15.9,tamarind pulp 17.0,turmeric 67.8, raisins 7.7……..

The knowledge of growing this diversity and transforming it to food is women’s knowledge. That is why in Navdanya we have created the network for food sovereignty in women’s hands - Mahila Anna Swaraj.

The solution to malnutrition lies in growing nutrition, and growing nutrition means growing biodiversity, it means recognizing the knowledge of biodiversity and nutrition among millions of Indian women who have received it over generations as “Grandmothers Knowledge”. For removing iron deficiency, iron rich plants should be grown everywhere, on farms, in kitchen gardens, in community gardens, in school gardens, on roof tops, in balconies….Iron deficiency was not created by Nature. And we can get rid of it by becoming co-creators and co-producers with Nature.

But there is a “creation myth” that is blind to nature’s creativity and biodiversity, and to the creativity, intelligence and knowledge of women. According to this “creation myth” of capitalist patriarchy, rich and powerful men are the “creators”. They can own life through patents and intellectual property. They can tinker with nature’s complex evolution over millennia, and claim their trivial yet destructive acts of gene manipulation “create” life, “create” food, “create” nutrition. In the case of GM bananas it is one rich man, Bill Gates, financing one Australian scientist, Dale, who knows one crop, the banana, to impose inefficient and hazardous GM bananas on millions of people in India and Uganda who have grown hundreds of banana varieties over thousands of years in addition to thousands of other crops.

The project is a waste of money, and a waste of time. It will take 10 years and millions of dollars to complete the research. But meantime, governments, research agencies, scientists will become blind to biodiversity based, low cost, safe, time tested, democratic alternatives in the hands of women.

Bananas only have 0.44mg of iron per 100 grams of edible portion. All the effort to increase iron content of bananas will fall short of the iron content of our indigenous biodiversity.

Not only is the GM banana not the best choice for providing iron in our diet, it will further threaten biodiversity of bananas and iron rich crops, and introduce new ecological risks.

First, the GM banana, if adopted, will be grown as large monocultures, like GM Bt cotton, and the banana plantations in the banana republics of Central America. Since government and Aid agencies will push this false solution, as has happened with every “miracle” in agriculture, our biodiversity of iron rich foods will disappear.

The idea of “nutrient farming” of a few nutrients in monocultures of a few crops has already started to be pushed at the policy level. The finance Minister announced an Rs 200 crore project for “nutri farms” in his 2013 budget speech.

Humans need a biodiversity of nutrients including a full range of micronutrients and trace elements. These come from healthy soils and biodiversity.

Second, our native banana varieties will be displaced, and contaminated. These include Nedunendran, Zanzibar, Chengalikodan, Manjeri Nendran II


Table varieties
Monsmarie, Robusta, Grand Naine, Dwarf Cavendish, Chenkadali, Poovan, Palayankodan,Njalipoovan, Amritsagar, Grosmichel, Karpooravalli, Poomkalli, Koompillakannan, Chinali, Dudhsagar, Poovan, Red banana

Culinary varieties

Monthan, Batheea Kanchikela Nendrapadathy
Njalipoovan, Palayankodan, Robusta.
(KERALA AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY ORGANIC PRODUCTION OF BANANA (Musa spp.)


There is a perverse urge among the biotechnology brigade to declare war against biodiversity in its centre of origin. An attempt was made to introduce Bt brinjal into India which is the centre of diversity for Brinjal. GM corn is being introduced in Mexico, the centre of diversity of corn. The GM banana is being introduced to the two countries where banana is a significant crop and has large diversity. One is India, the other is Uganda, the only country where banana is a staple.

Fourth, as recognized by Harvest Plus, the corporate alliance pushing Biofortification, there could be insurmountable problems with the biofortification of nutrients in foods as they: “... may deliver toxic amounts of nutrients to an individual and also cause its associated side effects (and) the potential that the fortified products will still not be a solution to nutrient deficiencies amongst low income populations who may not be able to afford the new product and children who may not be able to consume adequate amounts." (Food Biofortification: no answer to ill-health, starvation or malnutrition By Bob Phelps http://www.freshfruitportal.com/opinion ... od-justice)

Fifth, Australian scientists are using a virus that infects the banana as a promoter. This could spread through horizontal gene transfer. All genetic engineering uses genes from bacteria and viruses. Independent studies have shown that there are health risks associated with GM foods.

There is no need for introducing a hazardous technology in a low iron food like bananas (which brings us many other health benefits )when we have so many affordable, accessible, safe and diverse options for meeting our nutritional needs of iron.

We have to grow nutrition by growing biodiversity, not industrially “fortify” nutritionally empty food at high cost, or put one or two nutrients into genetically engineered crops.

We don’t need these irresponsible experiments, that create new threats to biodiversity and our health, imposed by powerful men in distant places, who are totally ignorant of the biodiversity in our fields and thalis, and who never bear the consequences of their destructive power. We need to put food security in women’s hands so that the last woman and the last child can share in nature’s gifts of biodiversity.

[Sounder]

Conservatives Laugh As Liberals Attack President Over Non-Existent ‘Monsanto Protection Act’
2013/03/28
By Nathaniel Downes

The concerns over these crops comes from fear. People instinctively understand sex, and how that produces children. They do not instinctively understand gene splicing, even though that is how sex produces children in the first place. Most people do not have time to go out and understand it, so they label such modified products as “frankenfoods” and build fear upon lack of information, or worse purposeful misinformation fed by other industries who seek to hurt some related cause, such as climate change science. The fact is, some genetically modified crops have been shown to have substantial benefits, by making them more resistant to disease, adding essential nutrients, and even fight climate change. Genetic modification through direct gene splicing has been done since 1970, and is widely understood after decades of research and application.

This paragraph is so laden with Rockefeller consensus bullshit that I fear for this fellow when he finally takes a shit.

Does anybody else but me see that the emotional entrainment that comes with AGW serves to insulate Rockefeller consensus influenced folk from having proper concern for the corruption of food production?

All hail the miracles of the Green Revolution.

Now bow down to the one you serve.

[Sounder]

http://www.nationofchange.org/study-lin ... 1367764115

A new review of hundreds of scientific studies surrounding glyphosate—the major component of Monsanto’s Roundup herbicide—sheds light on its effects within the human body. The paper describes how all of these effects could work together, and with other variables, trigger health problems in humans, including debilitating diseases like gastrointestinal disorders, diabetes, heart disease, obesity, Parkinson’s and Alzheimer’s disease.

Glyphosate impairs the cytochrome P450 (CYP) gene pathway, which creates enzymes that help to form and also break down molecules in cells. There are myriad important CYP enzymes, including aromatase (the enzyme that converts androgen into estrogen) and 21-Hydroxylase, which creates cortisol (stress hormone) and aldosterone (regulates blood pressure). One function of these CYP enzymes is also to detoxify xenobiotics, which are foreign chemicals like drugs, carcinogens or pesticides. Glyphosate inhibits these CYP enzymes, which has rippling effects throughout our body.

Most news sources are funded by corporations and investors. Their goal is to drive people to advertisers while pushing the corporate agenda. NationofChange is a 501(c)3 organization funded almost 100% from its readers–you! Our only accountability is to the public. Click here to make a generous donation.

Because the CYP pathway is essential for normal functioning of various systems in our bodies, any small change in its expression can lead to disruptions. For example, humans exposed to glyphosate have decreased levels of the amino acid tryptophan, which is necessary for active signaling of the neurotransmitter serotonin. Suppressed serotonin levels have been associated with weight gain, depression and Alzheimer’s disease.

This paper does not claim to yield new scientific discoveries. Instead, it looks at older studies in a new light. Critics will say the links between glyphosate and health problems made in this paper are purely correlational, but this work is important because it brings all of the possible health effects of glyphosate together and discusses what could happen: something the U.S. Department of Agriculture, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the Food and Drug Administration have failed to do.

Just as Monsanto attempted to discredit scientist Gilles-Eric Seralini’s study on rats fed genetically engineered corn, the company called this peer-reviewed journal article “another bogus study” due to its “bad science.” In a classic pot-calling-the-kettle-black scenario, what Monsanto doesn’t mention is that the majority of research showing glyphosate’s safety has been done by Monsanto itself, which could be called bad science as well due to its limited and biased nature.

The authors of the new review call for more independent research to validate their findings, stating that “glyphosate is likely to be pervasive in our food supply, and contrary to being essentially nontoxic, it may in fact be the most biologically disruptive chemical in our environment.” If the body of independent research on GE foods and the herbicides used with them shows one thing, it is that there are unanswered questions begging for unbiased research. And while these questions remain unanswered, Americans have the right to know how their food was produced.

[jcivil]

Thank God GMO's have been made legal and protected to produce. Flakes may quiver, but this spring I see the buds of my own creating sprouting. You could probably not conceive the ease with which I made new life and forced being to my will.

Thank God, years back, on the campaign trial, I got to snag samples of W. and Cheney and Ari Fleischer. Now, in a stroke of, frankly, genius, I have made the tiger lilly beautifully express their faces in its petals. And they are edible!

Thank God, I know this will sell to the Tea Party and Anarcho-Pinkos alike. Right now I am working up a leech Rumsfeld. Please contact with any suggestions, and don't tell me you think its an abomination unless you want a micrafly to detonate in your upper sinus.

P.S. Full disclosure, I made my first ten million on a vat chicken blue whale cross for KFC.

P.P.S. For recipes with tiger lilies go to eatwalkers.com