Corruption of Food Production Thread

[Sounder]

Maybe after the approval of the bee killer stuff, neo whatever, perhaps it was decided that this might a step to far, at the moment for the agribusiness interests.


http://www.motherjones.com/tom-philpott ... emporarily


USDA Sticks It to Monsanto and Dow—At Least Temporarily
—By Tom Philpott
Sat May. 11, 2013 10:51 AM PDT

Back in early 2012, the US Department of Agriculture seemed on the verge of approving new genetically modified crops from agrichemical giants Monsanto and Dow. The two agrichemical giants were pushing new corn and soy varieties that would respond to the ever-expanding problem of herbicide-tolerant superweeds by bringing more-toxic herbicides into the mix—and likely ramping up the resistance problem, as I explained at length in a post at the time.

Even some mainstream ag scientists were alarmed at the coming escalation in the war against weeds. Scientists at Penn State—not exactly a hotbed of alternative ag thinking—delivered a damning analysis of the novel crops, which would engineered to withstand not only Monsanto's Roundup herbicide, but also the highly toxic old ones 2,4-D (Dow's version) and Dicamba (Monsanto's).

Yet in August, the USDA again signaled that approval would be imminent—and by the end of 2012, people who follow ag regulatory issues were telling me that the USDA would almost certainly approve the crops over Christmas break, timing the decision in an effort to minimize the inevitable uproar.

But then Christmas came and went with no announcement—leading Dow to issue a January press statement about how the unexpected delay meant it could not sell its new product to farmers for the 2013 growing season. Yet the company remained confident about the prospects for approval in time for planting in 2014—it told the trade journal Delta Farm Press it "expects all approvals will be in place for sale in late 2013," in time for a its novels seeds to be used over a "broad geography" in 2014.

But on Friday, the USDA essentially trampled on those expectations—it announced it was delaying approval of the crops until it could generate full environmental impact statements (known as EIS's) on them. The move effectively means that the crops won't be planted in fields next year, either, a Dow spokesperson told Bloomberg News.

more at link

[DrEvil]

Supreme Court won’t let farmer dodge Monsanto’s patented seeds
Justices rule 9-0 that Indiana farmer can't rely on a "blame-the-bean defense."

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013 ... ted-seeds/

[Joe Hillshoist]

FFS what a joke.

[Simulist]

I see a silver-lining here. Because if you can actually patent biological entities, maybe someone could patent Tom Cruise — so that there can never legally be another one.

[Joe Hillshoist]

we should start a list.

(Cue ominous music.)

[parel]

Want to Steer Clear of Monsanto? 'Buycott' App Shows You How

Don’t bother trying to download the Android version of the new Buycott smartphone application today. It’s not there. The company’s website even went down earlier this week.

It’s all because a deluge of media attention sent droves of people from around the world to the company’s website to download the free app, which allows consumers to buy products consistent with their values—simply by scanning a product’s barcode.


And it appears the ability to shop for food conscientiously is a main reason folks are flocking to the app.

Here’s how the app works: First, users join campaigns boycotting business practices that violate their principles—such as products made by Big Food companies or corporations that have fought GMO labeling. When an item is scanned, “Buycott will then trace the product's ownership back to its top parent company and cross-check this company against the campaigns that you've joined before telling you whether it found a conflict,” according to the company's website.

But when numerous articles popped up in media around the world this week, the company wasn’t quite prepared for the crush of traffic from consumers looking for a simple way to boycott Monsanto or companies run by billionaire conservatives Charles and David Koch. At its peak, the free app reached No. 10 in the Google Play store as requests for the app exceeded 100 downloads per minute, according to a posting on the company’s Facebook page explaining why the app had to be temporarily pulled down. According to Buycott’s developer, 26-year-old Ivan Pardo of Los Angeles, the company is in the process of migrating to a server configuration that is capable of handling the traffic.

“We’re absolutely humbled by the response to the app,” Pardo tells TakePart. “We can’t wait to have it running in a more stable state. We’ll be working around the clock for the next week or so until it’s complete.”

The developer admits the app, which is still available for iPhone, is far from perfect. Corporate structures change, for instance, and it’s impossible for one company’s knowledge base to correctly categorize every retail item. Buycott is already receiving feedback from users on social media.

“How can we let you know about a company that you have listed as having no conflicts, but that does have a conflict?” one user writes on the company’s Facebook page. “Burt’s Bees’ parent company is Proctor & Gamble, and they conduct animal testing. The app currently says it doesn’t conflict with the animal welfare campaign.”

Even still, the ability for users to join user-created campaigns to boycott business practices, rather than simply avoiding individual companies, is impressive. When you join Demand GMO Labeling, for example, and scan a product, the app tells you if it was made by one of the 36 corporations that donated more than $150,000 to oppose the mandatory labeling of genetically modified food.

The app could also be used to support companies that back GMO labeling or brands that are strong on LGBT rights—like Starbucks.

“The app isn’t angled at any particular set of beliefs,” writes app reviewer Phil Hornshaw at Appolicious.com, “but instead empowers you to make choices about who you give your money, regardless of where you stand on issues.”
http://www.takepart.com/article/2013/05 ... send%22%7D

[Project Willow]

http://www.march-against-monsanto.com/

May 25 Global March Against Monsanto, pics from Seatown.

[Perelandra]

^Nice pics, looks like fun.

I want to get some of these to hand out at local stores or elsewhere.
http://www.occucards.com/cards/monsanto/

Bad news:http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/14/business/monsanto-victorious-in-genetic-seed-case.html

Possibly good news:http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/27/business/food-companies-seeking-ingredients-that-arent-gene-altered.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

I've been noticing non-GMO labels on a few products, mostly processed and therefore not exactly the healthiest, but still.

[Hammer of Los]

...

Great pics Willow!

Thanks a bunch!

...

[Sounder]

I’m surprised that there is not more outrage toward Monsanto given that pretty much everyone has had their gut bacteria’s severely compromised via glyphosates.

http://www.fromthetrenchesworldreport.c ... ease/46918
t


Monsanto’s Roundup Herbicide May Be Most Important Factor in Development of Autism and Other Chronic Disease


Dr. Steve Mercola

In recent weeks, we’ve learned some very disturbing truths about glyphosate, the active ingredient in Monsanto’s broad-spectrum herbicide Roundup, which is generously doused on genetically engineered (GE) Roundup Ready crops.

GE crops are typically far more contaminated with glyphosate than conventional crops, courtesy of the fact that they’re engineered to withstand extremely high levels of Roundup without perishing along with the weed.

A new peer-reviewed report authored by Anthony Samsel, a retired science consultant, and a long time contributor to the Mercola.com Vital Votes Forum, and Dr. Stephanie Seneff, a research scientist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), reveals how glyphosate wrecks human health.
In the interview above, Dr. Seneff summarizes the two key problems caused by glyphosate in the diet:

Video at link.
How Glyphosate Worsens Modern Diseases

While Monsanto insists that Roundup is as safe to humans as aspirin, Seneff and Samsel’s research tells a different story altogether. Their report, published in the journal Entropy1, argues that glyphosate residues, found in most commonly consumed foods in the Western diet courtesy of GE sugar, corn, soy and wheat, “enhance the damaging effects of other food-borne chemical residues and toxins in the environment to disrupt normal body functions and induce disease.”
Interestingly, your gut bacteria are a key component of glyphosate’s mechanism of harm.

Monsanto has steadfastly claimed that Roundup is harmless to animals and humans because the mechanism of action it uses (which allows it to kill weeds), called the shikimate pathway, is absent in all animals. However, the shikimate pathway IS present in bacteria, and that’s the key to understanding how it causes such widespread systemic harm in both humans and animals.

The bacteria in your body outnumber your cells by 10 to 1. For every cell in your body, you have 10 microbes of various kinds, and all of them have the shikimate pathway, so they will all respond to the presence of glyphosate!

Glyphosate causes extreme disruption of the microbe’s function and lifecycle. What’s worse, glyphosate preferentially affectsbeneficial bacteria, allowing pathogens to overgrow and take over. At that point, your body also has to contend with the toxins produced by the pathogens. Once the chronic inflammation sets in, you’re well on your way toward chronic and potentially debilitating disease.

……Other research backing up the Roundup-autism link is that from former US Navy staff scientist Dr. Nancy Swanson. She has a Ph.D. in physics, holds five US patents and has authored more than 30 scientific papers and two books on women in science. Ten years ago, she became seriously ill, and in her journey to regain her health she turned to organic foods. Not surprisingly (for those in the know) her symptoms dramatically improved. This prompted her to start investigating genetically engineered foods.

She has meticulously collected statistics on glyphosate usage and various diseases and conditions, including autism. A more perfect match-up between the rise in glyphosate usage and incidence of autism is hard to imagine… To access her published articles and reports, please visit Sustainable Pulse4, a European website dedicated to exposing the hazards of genetically engineered foods.

[Sounder]

http://www.greenmedinfo.com/blog/how-gm ... unfriendly

How GMO Farming and Food Is Making Our Gut Flora UNFRIENDLY


Posted on:
Thursday, March 28th 2013 at 5:00 am
Written By:
Sayer Ji, Founder

Two studies published in the past six months reveal a disturbing finding: glyphosate-based herbicides such as Roundup® appear to suppress the growth of beneficial gut bacteria, leading to the overgrowth of extremely pathogenic bacteria.

Late last year, in an article titled Roundup Herbicide Linked to Overgrowth of Deadly Bacteria, we reported on new research indicating that glyphosate-based herbicides such as Roundup® may be contributing to the overgrowth of harmful bacteria, both in GM-produced food and our own bodies. By suppressing the growth of beneficial bacteria and encouraging the growth of pathogenic ones, including deadly botulism-associated Clostridum botulinum, GM agriculture may be contributing to the alarming increase, wordwide, in infectious diseases that are resistant to conventional antibiotics, such as Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) and Carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae (CRE), which the CDC's director recently termed a 'nightmare bacteria.'

GMO Herbicides May Lead To The Overgrowth of Harmful Bacteria, Including Deadly Clostridum Botulinum

Now a new study published in the journal Anaerobe titled, "Glyphosate suppresses the antagonistic effect of Enterococcus spp. On Clostridum botulinum," confirms this herbicide's ability to adversely affect gut bacteria populations (i.e. generate dysbios).[i] In an attempt to explain why Clostridum botulinum associated diseases in cattle have increased during the last 10-15 years in German cattle, researchers theorized that since normal intestinal flora is a critical factor in preventing Clostridum botulinum colonization in conditions such as infantile botulism perhaps the ingestion of strong biocides such as glyphosate found in GM cattle feed could reduce their natural, lactic acid bacteria dependent immune defenses as pathogenic microbes.

They reported on the toxicity of glyphosate to Enteroccocus, the most prevalent lactic acid bacteria species in the gastrointestinal tract of cattle, and concluded "Ingestion of this herbicide could be a significant predisposing factor that is associated with the increase in C. botulinum mediated diseases in cattle."

Of course, the implications of this finding extend beyond the health of cattle or poultry. The majority of American consumers who don't even have the legal right to know through truthful labeling if they are eating GMOs, are consuming non-organic, Roundup Ready soy, canola, cottonseed or soy on a daily basis, and therefore are being exposed to glyphosate residues year round; additionally, animals fed Roundup sprayed GMO plants will bioaccumulate glyphosate and/or glyphosate metabolites, adding to the consumer's bodily burden of these gut flora-altering, highly toxic chemicals.

GMO Herbicides Kill More Than 'Weeds,' Are Broad-Spectrum Biocides

Glyphosate is a broad-spectrum biocide. It does not discriminate by killing only the "weeds" that compete with the genetically modified plants resistant to it. In fact, it has been found to be toxic to human DNA at concentrations 450-fold lower than presently used in agricultural applications.[ii] When combined with adjuvants and other so-called 'inactive' ingredients, the glyphosate-formulations are far more toxic than their component ingredients taken in isolation.[iii] Nor are the toxic effects limited to plants. A 2012 study published in the journal Environmental Monitoring and Assessment found that Roundup herbicide has DNA-damaging effects to fish after short-term, environmentally low concentration exposures (6.67 μg/L, or, 6.67 micrograms per Liter).[iv] For a comprehensive list of the toxic effects of Roundup and glyphosate visit our research page on the topic: Glyphosate formulations.

One of the most concerning adverse effects of glyphosate most relevant to the topic of this article is its destructive effects on the fertility of soil itself. In an earlier expose titled, Un-Earthed: Is Monsanto's Glyphosate Destroying the Soil?, concerning findings published in the journal Current Microbiology were discussed showing that Roundup® herbicide is having a negative impact on the microbiodiversity of the soil, including microorganisms of food interest, and specifically those found in raw and fermented foods.[v]

One of the key implications of this finding is that since many of the beneficial bacteria that make up the 100 trillion bacteria in our gut necessary for health come from our food, and these bacteria-rich foods nourish and help maintain the flora in our gut, the removal of key beneficial microorganisms from the soil will likely result in profoundly disrupting the bacteria-mediated infrastructure of our health.

We Must Reject GMO Farming Practices Or Face Dire Consequences

We must, of course, consider carefully the origin of our food. Conventionally produced produce and animal products are often grown or fed from farming practices that involve the use of factory-farmed manure and raw human sewage. Animal and human excreta today is exceedingly toxic, and contains a wide range of chemicals, pharmaceuticals, hormones and antibiotic resistant bacteria and related pathogens that. contaminate our food and our bodies if we choose to eat it. It also causes us to employ 'food security' technologies like nuclear waste-based food irradiation and bacteriophage sprays try to disinfect inherently toxic food, only generating different and sometimes far more dangerous compounds as a result.

Instead of succumbing to the intellectually unsophisticated concept that disease is primarily caused by germs 'out there,' rather than viewing our risk of infection as primarily determined by immune susceptibility 'in here,' we must shift our understanding radically if we are to survive the wholesale destruction of our biosphere, also entirely refraining from supporting, buying, consuming food produced through GM-based farming practices. Our body is literally woven from the molecular fabric of the body of the Earth. And so, when we poison or genetically modify our environment, and we poison and genetically modify ourselves.

[Sounder]

No doubt, more Rockefeller foundation trust money being put to 'good' use.


And the 'World Food Prize' goes to? 3 GMO Scientists

- Sarah Lazare, staff writer

This year’s World Food Prize was handed to leading GMO scientists, including a developer at biotech giant Monsanto.

(Photo: Creative Commons/blondcupie) The move was an unbridled endorsement of GMOs amidst growing controversy as rising numbers question the technology’s safety for people and the environment.

The body responsible for handing out the prestigious award—the private World Food Prize Foundation—receives hefty donations from the biotech industry. Mother Jones reports:
Out of 125 donors who contributed more than $500 between fiscal years 2009 and 2011 (the years for which the foundation’s tax records are most readily available), 26 were either agribusiness or charities directly affiliated with agribusiness. Together, donations from these companies amounted to more than 28 percent of funds raised for that period, a Mother Jones analysis has found. The combined support of ADM, Cargill, Monsanto, and General Mills alone for this period came to more than a half million dollars.

The prize was created in 1986 by Norman Borlaug, 1970s pioneer of the ‘Green Revolution’—the highly controversial Western push for the rapid development of big agribusiness and implementation of new biotechnologies across the third world. While the ‘Green Revolution’ is heralded by big business as a force against world hunger, many insist it merely succeeded in exporting and enforcing food production models that turn a profit for big agribusiness while devastating small farmers and the environment and erroding food security across the globe.

The foundation claims the award is meant to honor “the achievements of individuals who have advanced human development by improving the quality, quantity or availability of food in the world.”

Officials were not shy about leaning heavily on the side of GMOs. Foundation president Kenneth Quinn declared, “If we were to be deterred by a controversy, that would diminish our prize,” said the foundation’s president, Kenneth Quinn, a retired U.S. diplomat.” (in some eyes, no doubt)

This year’s winners were announced at a Wednesday ceremony hosted by the State Department, and Secretary of State John Kerry delivered the address. Scientists from Ghent University and Syngenta Biotechnology were rewarded, in addition to the Monsanto scientists.

The prize garnered immediate condemnation. The AP reports on outrage at the announcement:
“GMO crops have led to the loss of food security worldwide and for small farmers, they have led to the development of factory farms and have destroyed biodiversity in food we do produce and consume,” said David Goodner, a community organizer for Iowa Citizens for Community Improvement, an environmental and human rights activist group that opposes corporate farming. “The World Food Prize by selecting these people to honor shows that it cares more about corporate profits than it cares about truly feeding the world with healthy food.”

The announcement comes as global opposition to Monsanto grows. Late May saw internationally coordinated protests against a company that many condemn as the ‘most evil company in the world’ for practices that undermine food safety and small farmers while deepening global poverty and hunger.
_____________________
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License

[conniption]

wsws

India: Contaminated school-meal kills 22 children

By Kranti Kumara
18 July 2013

At least 22 school children, ranging in age from 5 to 12, have died as the result of eating a severely contaminated mid-day meal Tuesday in a government-run primary school in Dharmasati Gandaman—a village in the Bihar state sub-district of Mashrakh.

The meal was supplied under a national government program that provides lunches to all pupils attending a government-administered or -supported primary school.

There were scenes of anguish Tuesday evening and all through Wednesday, as parents and relatives claimed the bodies of the dead children and sought news of the two dozen children who remain in critical condition.

By Thursday morning some media sources were attributing 25 or more deaths to the contaminated meal. The Times of India reported that angry relatives have buried at least 27 bodies in front of the government school in Dharmasati Gandaman “as a mark of protest”. It added that those buried there do not include several children who were declared dead on their arrival late Tuesday in the state capital, Patna, which lies sixty kilometers to the south-east.

Yesterday villagers took to the streets to voice their anger against the state government, which took 15 hours to organize any serious effort to come to the aid of the poisoned children. They blocked roads and railway lines and attacked a police station, reportedly setting several vehicles ablaze. In Chhapra, the district capital, police used water cannon to quell protests.

The school’s headmistress, who doubled as one of its two teachers, reportedly fled the scene after the children began falling ill.

The cook had complained of a foul odour coming from the cooking-oil being used in preparing the meal, but was reportedly ordered by the headmistress to use it anyway.

These deaths are hardly the first from the Mid-Day Meal program, which is plagued by underfunding, poor hygiene standards, and corruption. In March of this year two children died in the northern state of Haryana after eating a tainted mid-day meal.

On Wednesday, the Indian Express reported that 50 children became ill in a government-school in another part of the Bihar. The children said they had fallen sick because the meal had a dead lizard in it. Also Wednesday, at least 31 children in the western state of Maharashtra were admitted to hospital for gastroenteritis after consuming a mid-day meal.

In a transparent attempt to deflect public anger away from Bihar’s JDU (Janata Dal-United) state government, the state education minister P.K. Shahi claimed the Dharmasati Gandaman deaths were likely a deliberate conspiracy to discredit the government. He alleged that the food used in preparing the meal had come from a store run by the headmistress’ husband, whom he alleged is an activist of a rival political party.

The Hindu-communalist Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), which until last month had been in a governmental coalition with the JDU, accused Bihar Chief Minister Nitish Kumar of being “insensitive and callous” for failing to visit the grief-stricken villagers.

Kumar has announced that the families of the dead children will be paid 200,000 rupees ($US3,370) in “compensation”.

The Congress Party, which heads India’s national coalition government, for its part, made only the mildest criticisms of Bihar’s government. It is hoping that now that the JDU has quit the BJP-led National Democratic Alliance it can be induced to align with the Congress for the 2014 national elections.

Various political parties, including the BJP and the Rashtriya Janata Dal, a sometime Congress party ally, called for protests Wednesday. While anti-government sentiment was strong, the BBC says its local correspondent reported that in some places opposition “political leaders have been chased from the streets by enraged protesters.”

It has been widely reported in the press that one of the doctors treating the sick children suspects that the deaths may have been caused by food grains getting contaminated with Organophosphorus, a chemical compound that is used widely as a pesticide in agriculture and as a nerve agent in chemical warfare.

However, this has not been confirmed by forensic analysis and the relatives of the children noted that only those who ate a vegetable dish made of soybeans and potatoes fell ill. Not the ones who merely ate grains. In any case, only a comprehensive scientific analysis will be able to pinpoint the exact cause of this horrific tragedy.

The Mid-day School lunch program was launched nationwide in every state in 2001 after the Indian Supreme Court ordered that all children in government and government-assisted primary schools be given one hot meal daily. The court also mandated that each child should be given at least 300 calories per child with 8-10 grams of protein.

The court’s ruling was in response to numerous studies showing that hunger and disease stalk India. Malnutrition and undernourishment are rampant among both children and adults, contributing to high mortality rates and, among children, stunted physical and intellectual development. According to the World Bank, India is home to at least one third of the malnourished children in the world, with almost half of India’s children considered malnourished.

As with every endeavour launched by the Indian ruling elite in the name of alleviating widespread poverty and misery, the Mid-Day Meal program exhibits widespread official indifference, incompetence and thievery.

Neither the Indian nor the state governments have set up proper kitchens and hygienic facilities for preparing children’s meals.

Instead the state governments have given contracts to politically-connected NGOs and others to supply and prepare meals. Many times the meals are prepared in ramshackle off-school premises, brought to the schools during the course of the morning, and then left to sit in the open till lunch. By the time the food is served to the children, it has often gone bad due to the hot climate and lack of refrigeration.

Also, the facilities where food grains are stored are habitually infested with rats and other vermin. The Indian government itself has a notorious reputation for letting massive amounts of food grains rot every year—grains it refuses to distribute to the poor and hungry because, in the words of Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, it doesn’t want to “disrupt” the grain market.

Throughout India and especially in Bihar, which is one of India’s poorest states, children often refuse to eat the mid-day meals because they are so bad. Complaints of dead rats, lizards, snakes and insects being found in the food are quite common.

For the Indian ruling elite, this horrid social reality is quite acceptable. While there will be much finger-pointing among the politicians, the calls for greater attention and resources to be given to the Mid-Day Meal program and India’s dilapidated schools will soon be forgotten. Indeed a prevailing theme in discussions within the ruling class is the need to reduce social spending and the state budget deficit so as to make India more attractive to international investors.

[MayDay]

http://blog.seattlepi.com/videoblogging ... consumers/

[Sounder]

This first link asserts an autism- glyphosate linkage.

I find it hard to believe that there seems to be so little concern expressed on this matter.

http://people.csail.mit.edu/seneff/WAPF ... andout.pdf


http://www.gmwatch.org/index.php?option ... ood-supply

U.S. plans to hike allowed glyphosate levels in food supply
Tuesday, 02 July 2013 22:53
1. U.S. weighing increase in herbicide levels in food supply
2. GMO crops mean more herbicide, not less

NOTE: The US EPA is preparing to massively raise the allowed residue level for glyphosate in some food and feed crops, including soy (see item 1 below).

The article below says the new EPA regulation would allow “oilseed” crops such as flax, canola, and soybean oil to contain glyphosate at levels up to 40 parts per million (ppm), up from 20 ppm, which is over 100,000 times the concentration needed to induce the growth of human breast cancer cells in vitro, according to a recent study:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23756170
It also raises the allowable glyphosate contamination level for food crops such as potatoes from 200 ppm to 6,000 ppm.

Meanwhile, a new report by Food & Water Watch analyses official USDA and EPA data to find that the quick adoption of GM crops by farmers has increased herbicide use over the past 9 years in the U.S. The report can be downloaded here:
http://www.foodandwaterwatch.org/reports/superweeds/
---
---
1. U.S. weighing increase in herbicide levels in food supply
By Cydney Hargis
IPS News, 2 Jul 2013
http://www.ipsnews.net/2013/07/u-s-weig ... od-supply/
Links to sources in original

Environmental safety groups are stepping up efforts to prevent a reportedly dangerous yet widely used herbicide from being sold in the United States, even as the country’s primary environmental regulator is considering increasing the amount of the herbicide allowed in the U.S. food supply.

The agricultural giant Monsanto has for years relied on its flagship product, a weed-killer known as Roundup. The primary ingredient in Roundup is an herbicide called glyphosate, which Monsanto has used to selectively kill weeds while allowing genetically modified versions of sugarcane, corn, soy, and wheat crops to grow.

“We are increasingly seeing more and more samples of surface water coming up with residues [of glyphosate], and this is affecting frogs that live there,” Patty Lovera, assistant director of Food & Water Watch, an advocacy group, told IPS. “Potatoes and carrots are also picking it up in the soil – there are multiple routes of exposure.”

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the federal regulatory agency, is currently preparing to increase the allowable amount of glyphosate in crops like carrots, sweet potatoes, and mustard seeds. A public comment period on the proposal to do so ends Monday night, and the EPA has reportedly already received some 9,000 comments.

The new EPA regulation would allow “oilseed” crops such as flax, canola, and soybean oil to contain glyphosate at levels up to 40 parts per million (ppm), up from 20 ppm, which is over 100,000 times the concentration needed to cause cancer according to a recent study. It also raises the allowable glyphosate contamination level for food crops such as potatoes from 200 ppm to 6,000 ppm.

Glyphosate has previously been shown to be an “endocrine disruptor”, which the National Institutes of Health has shown to have long-term effects on reproductive health. They can be very dangerous at low levels, thus restricting the amount allowed will not be effective.

“The EPA is failing to protect human health and the environment by neglecting to regulate the excessive use of herbicides,” a current Food & Water Watch petition states. “Instead, it is just changing its own rules to allow the irresponsible and potentially dangerous applications continue.”

Monsanto, meanwhile, claims glyphosate is safe because it only acts on a biological process that is present in plants, not animals.

“We are very confident in the long track record that glyphosate has,” Jerry Stainer, Monsanto’s executive vice president of sustainability, has stated in the past. “It has been very, very extensively studied.”

Yet new research says glyphosate interferes with gut bacteria, which can disrupt immunity and vitamin synthesis.

Indeed, according to EPA analysts, the consequences linked to exposure to the chemical include lung congestion and shortness of breath. Further, according to a study published in April, scientists have linked exposure to glyphosate to gastrointestinal disorders, obesity, diabetes, heart disease, depression, autism, infertility, and cancer.

“Negative impact on the body is insidious and manifests slowly over time as inflammation damages cellular systems throughout the body,” the study states.

“Part of the problem is that there is no ethical way to prove that [glyphosate] is as toxic as it is,” Sayer Ji, director of GreenMedInfo, an advocacy group, told IPS. “Yet meanwhile, no new research is proving it’s safer, but rather the opposite. I think the EPA is really damaging its credibility.”

According to Lovera, the EPA tends to be very slow in taking new studies into account. (The EPA was unable to provide comment for this story before deadline.)

180 million pounds

According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, more than 180 million pounds of glyphosate are applied to U.S. soil annually. Herbicide use has increased by 26 percent since 2001, according Food & Water Watch.

Instead of pushing more environmentally friendly techniques to combat weeds – such as varying crops from year to year or using crop covers – biotech companies have focused on inventing genetically engineered crops that can withstand the use of Roundup and other herbicides.

add(I think this flies because of a false faith in technology)

Yet the impacts of this massively increased use of chemical inputs on environmental systems and human communities are only slowly being understood.

Scientists have repeatedly found that the numbers of migrating monarch butterflies, for instance, are today at their lowest point in decades. Environmental advocacy groups say this is because milkweed plants – the only plant on which these butterflies lay their eggs – are being killed off by these herbicides.

Nor are plants and animals the only ones reportedly being affected by this increased use of glyphosate.

In its Farm Family Exposure Study, GreenMedInfo [GMW correction: In fact this is a Monsanto-sponsored study] looked at the glyphosate concentration in the urine of 48 farmers, their spouses and 79 of their children on the day before, the day of, and for three days after a glyphosate application on their farms.

Of the farmers studied, 60 percent had detectable levels of the chemical the day of the application. So too did four percent of their spouses and 12 percent of their children.

“For consumers in the United States, the best way to get around this is to look for organic labels on food, because they are not allowed to use Roundup,” Lovera told IPS. “That’s one of the biggest distinctions between conventional and organic products.”
---
---
2. GMO crops mean more herbicide, not less
Beth Hoffman
Forbes, 2 July 2013
http://www.forbes.com/sites/bethhoffman ... -not-less/

Over the past 15 years, farmers around the world have planted ever larger tracts of genetically engineered crops.

According to the USDA, in 2012 more than 93 percent of soy planted was “herbicide tolerant,” engineered to withstand herbicides (sold by the same companies who patent and sell the seeds). Likewise, 73 percent of all corn now is also genetically modified to withstand chemicals produced to kill competing weeds.

One of the main arguments behind creating these engineered crops is that farmers then need to use less herbicide and pesticide. This makes farms more eco-friendly, say proponents of genetically modified (GM) crops, and GM seeds also allow farmers to spend less on “inputs” (chemicals), thereby making a greater profit.

But a new study released by Food & Water Watch yesterday finds the goal of reduced chemical use has not panned out as planned. In fact, according to the USDA and EPA data used in the report, the quick adoption of genetically engineered crops by farmers has increased herbicide use over the past 9 years in the U.S. The report follows on the heels of another such study by Washington State University research professor Charles Benbrook just last year.

Both reports focus on “superweeds.” It turns out that spraying a pesticide repeatedly selects for weeds which also resist the chemical. Ever more resistant weeds are then bred, able to withstand increasing amounts – and often different forms – of herbicide.

At the center of debate is the pesticide glyphosate, the active ingredient in Monsanto‘s Round Up. Food & Water Watch found that the “total volume of glyphosate applied to the three biggest GE crops — corn, cotton and soybeans — increased 10-fold from 15 million pounds in 1996 to 159 million pounds in 2012.” Overall pesticide use decreased only in the first few years GE crops were used (42 percent between 1998 and 2001) and has since then risen by 26 percent from 2001 to 2010.

By 2011 there were also three times as many herbicide-resistant weeds found in farmer’s fields as there were in 2001.

This has meant huge profits for agribusinesses developing and selling genetically engineered seeds, herbicides, and pesticides. Seed revenues have septupled (increased seven fold) since 1998.

Fixing the problem is of course not going to be easy. But Food & Water Watch lists several suggestions, including the recommendation that the USDA “dedicate research dollars to developing alternatives for sustainable management of herbicide-resistant weeds.”

This is a solution that needs far more attention, and could be an economic boon for agriculture and green jobs across the country. It is also an idea I will discuss more later next week.