Corruption of Food Production Thread

[hanshan]

...

some good info here:

http://rigorousintuition.ca/board2/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=26482&hilit=Food+Inc.&start=30

this is quite disturbing:

From Cryptogon

Monsanto's GM Corn Damages Organs: A Comparison of Three GM Corn Varieties on Mammalian Health

"Our analysis clearly reveals for the 3 GMOs new side effects linked with GM maize consumption, which were sex- and often dose-dependent. Effects were mostly associated with the kidney and liver, the dietary detoxifying organs, although different between the 3 GMOs. Other effects were also noticed in the heart, adrenal glands, spleen and haematopoietic system. We conclude that these data highlight signs of hepatorenal toxicity, possibly due to the new pesticides specific to each GM corn. In addition, unintended direct or indirect metabolic consequences of the genetic modification cannot be excluded."

http://cryptogon.com/?p=13036


...

[slomo]

http://www.registerguard.com/web/newslo ... s.html.csp

Fraud alleged over organic corn sale

A Springfield [Oregon] man is charged with adding $193,169 to his profits by misrepresenting a conventional crop

BY KAREN MCCOWAN
The Register-Guard
Published: (Tuesday, Nov 15, 2011 11:06AM) Midnight, Nov. 15

A rural Springfield man faces a federal wire fraud charge for allegedly selling Grain Millers more than 4.2 million pounds of conventional corn falsely labeled as organic.

Harold Allen Chase reaped an additional profit of nearly $200,000 by passing off the grain as organic, the government charged in documents filed this month in Eugene’s U.S. District Court.

Chase has not yet appeared in court to enter a plea, although U.S. District Judge Ann Aiken has set an arraignment and change of plea hearing for Dec. 6.

Such combined hearings typically are scheduled when the government and the defendant already have negotiated a plea deal. Wire fraud is a felony punishable by up to 20 years in prison.

Chase declined comment on Monday.

His alleged fraud came to light after Grain Millers found “inconsistencies” while auditing the corn to verify that it complied with the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s National Organic Program regulations, said Keith Horton, vice president of milling for the Eugene company.

“We have to have a good paper trail for organics,” he explained.

Horton said Grain Millers did not actually process the 2,253 tons of corn it bought from Chase.

“We have a commodities division that just buys and trades grain,” he said. “We would buy from a farmer and resell to different milling companies and seed companies.”

In this case, Grain Millers sold the corn as organic feed for livestock to customers that included CHS Nutrition Inc. of Harrisburg and Danish Dairy in Coquille.

“It definitely was not sold for (direct) human consumption,” Horton said. Under Grain Millers’ sales agreement with Chase, he delivered the corn directly to those customers, who already had it by the time Grain Millers discovered and reported to the USDA discrepancies in Chase’s reported certifications and volumes, Horton said.

The government charges that Chase was acting as a grain broker when he conducted the elaborate scheme between November 2009 and May 2010, according to court documents. He first used several aliases — including Allen Rein, Stewart Lamb and Thomas Wyheart, to buy approximately 2,253 tons of conventional corn from four grain suppliers based in Idaho and Eastern Washington.

“To trick Grain Millers into believing that the conventional corn was organic,” the government complaint charges that Chase then faxed the Eugene company paperwork falsely representing that he had purchased the corn from a USDA-certified organic grower in Milton Freewater.

Chase further tried to conceal the true source of the corn by having it delivered to “transloading sites” in Washington, where it was placed in different trucks for delivery to the end buyers, the complaint says. Chase personally supervised the transloading, which is not common practice because it’s cheaper to have the same truck pick up and deliver the corn, the complaint alleges.

Grain Millers paid Chase $217 a ton for the corn because he’d falsely labeled it as organic, court documents charge. Conventional corn was then selling for $123.50 a ton — meaning Chase wrongfully earned $193,169 in the transaction, the government alleges.

USDA-certified organic foods are grown without synthetic pesticides, insecticides, herbicides, fungicides, hormones, fertilizers or other “synthetic or toxic substances.”

Oregon Secretary of State’s Office business records show that from 1984 until earlier this year, Chase operated Blue Star Farms on M.J. Chase Road, along the Walterville Canal off Camp Creek Road. The company was dissolved administratively in July 2011, according to state records.

Information posted on http://www.localharvest.org in 2007 said the company grew and sold “gourmet organic produce” to local organic distributors. It listed the Lane County Farmers’ Market in Eugene as a location for purchase of its daikon, onions, parsnips, radishes and sun chokes. It also stated that all the company’s fields were certified organic by Oregon Tilth.

A spokeswoman for Oregon Tilth said the farm has not been certified by the nonprofit organic certification group since 2009. Blue Star Farms was not among participants in the 2011 Lane County Farmers’ Market, according to a representative of that group.

[justdrew]

BPA spikes 1,200 percent after eating canned soup
By Agence France-Presse
Tuesday, November 22, 2011

WASHINGTON — People who ate canned soup for five days straight saw their urinary levels of the chemical bisphenol A spike 1,200 percent compared to those who ate fresh soup, US researchers said on Tuesday.

The randomized study, described as “one of the first to quantify BPA levels in humans after ingestion of canned foods,” was done by Harvard University researchers and appears in the Journal of the American Medical Association’s November 23 issue.

“We’ve known for a while that drinking beverages that have been stored in certain hard plastics can increase the amount of BPA in your body,” said lead author Jenny Carwile, a doctoral student in the Department of Epidemiology at Harvard School of Public Health.

“This study suggests that canned foods may be an even greater concern, especially given their wide use.”

The chemical BPA is an endocrine disruptor that has been shown to interfere with reproductive development in animal studies at levels of 50 micrograms per kilogram of body weight and higher, though it remains uncertain if the same effects cross over to humans, according to the Environmental Protection Agency.

This study did not measure BPA levels by micrograms per kilogram of body weight, but rather by micrograms per liter of urine, so a direct comparison to the EPA-cited danger level in animals was not possible.

However, previous studies have linked BPA at lower levels than those found in the Harvard study to cardiovascular disease, diabetes and obesity in humans, Carwile told AFP in an email.

BPA is found in the lining of canned foods, cash register receipts, dental fillings, some plastics and polycarbonate bottles marked with the number 7.

Seventy-five people took part in the study, eating a 12-ounce serving of either fresh or canned soup for five days in a row. They were advised not to otherwise alter their regular eating habits.

After a two-day break, the groups switched and ate the opposite type of canned soup.

A urine analysis showed the canned soup eaters had 1,221 percent higher levels of BPA than those who ate the fresh soup.

BPA is typically eliminated in the urine and so any spike is usually considered temporary. The researchers did not measure how long elevated BPA stayed in the body, saying more study would be needed to examine that question.

The US government’s health and environmental agencies are considering whether “further action is needed to address human health risks resulting from non-food-packaging uses of BPA,” according to the EPA.

France’s Agency for Food Health Safety (Anses) in September called for tougher preventive measures, warning that even “low doses” of the chemical had had a “confirmed” effect on lab animals and a “suspected” effect on humans.

Preventing exposure to BPA among infants, pregnant or nursing women was a “priority goal,” Anses said.

Meanwhile, the Harvard study authors said their findings should encourage people who eat a lot of canned foods to opt for fresh instead, and should serve as a red flag to manufacturers who use BPA to make cans.

“The magnitude of the rise in urinary BPA we observed after just one serving of soup was unexpected and may be of concern among individuals who regularly consume foods from cans or drink several canned beverages daily,” said senior author Karin Michels.

“It may be advisable for manufacturers to consider eliminating BPA from can linings.”

[Pele'sDaughter]

http://www.omaha.com/article/20120110/N ... 59-offices

USDA to close 259 offices

DES MOINES — The U.S. Department of Agriculture announced Monday that it will close nearly 260 offices nationwide, a move that won praise for cutting costs but raised concerns about the possible effect on food safety.

Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack said the goal was to save $150 million a year in the department's $145 billion budget. About $90 million had already been saved by reducing travel and supplies, and the closings were expected to save another $60 million, he said.

The plan calls for 259 offices, labs and other facilities to be closed, affecting the USDA headquarters in Washington and operations in 46 states. Seven foreign offices also will be closed.

Some of the closings had been previously announced. The USDA said last year it would shut down 10 agricultural research stations, including the only one in Alaska, where scientists were seeking ways to use the vast waste generated by the largest wild fishery in the nation to make everything from gel caps to fish meal for livestock feed.

Other parts of the announcement were a surprise. Andrew Lorenz, deputy district manager for the Food Safety and Inspection Service in Minneapolis, learned that his office would be closed, along with those in Madison, Wis., and Lawrence, Kan.

"They wiped out the entire Midwest," said Lorenz, whose office handles all federal inspections of meat, poultry and egg products in Minnesota, Montana, North and South Dakota and Wyoming.

Food Safety and Inspection Service offices in Chicago and Des Moines will remain open. It was not immediately clear whether work from the other offices would be shifted to them.

Lorenz said about 16 people work in his office, and he expected 12 to 14 of their jobs to be eliminated. A USDA spokeswoman said employees would be given the opportunity to transfer to other offices when possible.

Vilsack said he didn't expect widespread layoffs, in part because 7,000 USDA employees took early retirements over the past year. He said the department is trying to do more with less in light of federal cutbacks, and many of the offices to be closed had few employees or were near other offices.

"Our workload is at record highs, we have less money and fewer people and work to do, and we tried to address how do you do that without interrupting service," Vilsack said in a phone call from Honolulu, where he was speaking to the American Farm Bureau Federation.

The USDA manages a wide array of programs, from emergency aid to farmers to grants for rural development and food assistance programs for the poor. Along with the Agricultural Research Service and Food Safety and Inspection Service, six other departments will be affected by closings, including the Farm Service Agency and Rural Development.

Kevin Ross, 31, a sixth-generation farmer in Iowa, expressed concern over how the closings will affect services. Farmers could drop out of programs if they have to travel long distances, he said.

"Access to agencies is a big deal, especially in rural areas," said Ross, who grows 400 acres of corn on his farm near Minden. "It's easy to say it looks like great cost savings, but I hope they are careful and strategic in their decisions."

Vilsack said public hearings will be held in counties where Farm Service Agency offices are to be closed. That department handles disaster assistance, farm loans and crop subsidies, among other programs. The USDA plans to shut 131 FSA offices in 32 states, with largest number of closings in Arkansas, Tennessee and Texas.

Bruce Babcock, a farm economist at Iowa State University and director of the school's Center for Agricultural and Rural Development, said consolidation was a long time coming, given that advances in technology made it possible to file applications and do other tasks over the phone or online. He said he's more concerned about the USDA's ability to maintain programs that deal with disease prevention.

"The capability to collect data and do the behind-the-scenes activities that really help U.S. agriculture stay safe, that should be concerning," Babcock said.

Colin Woodall, a spokesman for the National Cattlemen's Beef Association, which represents more than 147,000 ranchers nationwide, applauded the USDA for trying to save taxpayers' money in tight economic times. But he also expressed concern about food safety.

"We can't say this is all great news because some offices will be closed," Woodall said. "We have to make sure we have the process in place to keep food safe."

Vilsack said the closings and other cost-cutting measures will allow the USDA to keep investing in programs that make agriculture more productive, including maintaining credit to farmers, providing aid to beginning farmers and doing scientific research.

"Over the long haul, we believe farmers and ranchers across the country will be better served by the choices we made," he said.

But that was of little consolation to California cotton growers mourning the loss of the 80-year-old agriculture research station at Shafter, which solved many of the industry's pest and fungus problems.

Calcot, a growers' co-op that sells more than a million bales annually, had lobbied officials to keep the center, which lately has been working to address fusarium wilt, a soil-dwelling fungus that attacks cotton plants.

"This is going to be to the detriment of the U.S. cotton industry and ultimately the world because so much research there has benefited growers everywhere," Calcot spokesman Mark Bagby said.

[slomo]

Wholesale Approval of Genetically Engineered Foods — Obama Administration Disappoints/Angers Public

January 4th, 2012
Agent Orange Herbicide Ingredient Would be Widely Used
USDA seeks comments for Monsanto and Dow genetically engineered crops

Cornucopia, WI – Over the holidays, the United States Department of Agriculture announced its approval of a novel strain of genetically engineered corn, developed by Monsanto, purportedly being “drought tolerant.”

Despite receiving nearly 45,000 public comments in opposition to this particular genetically engineered (GE) corn variety (and only 23 comments in favor), the Obama administration gave Monsanto the green light to release its newest GE corn variety freely into the environment and American food supply, without any governmental oversight or safety tracking.

“President Obama and Secretary of Agriculture Vilsack just sent a clear message to the American public that they do not care about our concerns with genetically engineered food and their questionable safety, adverse environmental impacts, and detrimental effects on farmers, especially organic farmers,” says Mark A. Kastel, Senior Farm Policy Analyst with The Cornucopia Institute.

“This is just the latest in a string of approvals of genetically engineered crops, and it is clear that despite campaign promises of change from Obama, he has not had the courage to stand strong against the powerful agribusiness and biotechnology lobbies,” Kastel added.

In addition to its announcement approving Monsanto’s newest GE corn variety, the USDA also opened a 60-day public comment period for two additional petitions – one for Monsanto’s GE soybean containing higher levels of an omega-3 fatty acid, that does not naturally occur in soybeans, and the other from Dow AgroSciences for corn that has been genetically engineered to better resist the poisonous herbicide 2,4-D.

The public can comment on Dow’s 2,4-D corn at:

http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDe ... -0103-0001

While the USDA attempts to assure the public that 2,4-D is safe, scientists have raised serious concerns about the safety of this herbicide, which was used as a key ingredient in “Agent Orange,” used to defoliate forests and croplands in the Vietnam War.

2,4-D is a chlorophenoxy herbicide, and scientists around the world have reported increased cancer risks in association with its use, especially for soft tissue sarcoma and malignant lymphoma. Four separate studies in the United States reported an association with chlorophenoxy herbicide use and non-Hodgkin lymphoma.

“The concern is that, just like Monsanto’s genetically engineered corn that is resistant to RoundUp™ (glyphosate) herbicide, the approval of a cultivar resistant to 2,4-D will cause an exponential increase in the use of this toxic agrichemical,” Kastel stated.

Research by the EPA found that babies born in counties with high rates of 2,4-D application to farm fields were significantly more likely to be born with birth defects of the respiratory and circulatory systems, as well as defects of the musculoskeletal system like clubfoot, fused digits and extra digits. These birth defects were 60% to 90% more likely in counties with higher 2,4-D application rates.

The results also showed a higher likelihood of birth defects in babies conceived in the spring, when herbicide application rates peak.

In its petition, Dow AgroSciences states that 2,4-D is increasingly important for chemical farmers because of the presence of weeds that have developed resistance to glyphosate, as a result of the widespread use of Monsanto’s genetically engineered glyphosate-resistant crops.

When Monsanto introduced glyphosate, it was touted as a safer and less toxic alternative to herbicides like 2,4-D. Now, an emerging body of scientific literature is raising serious concerns about the safety of glyphosate as well.

“The concern that the use of GE crops, which are resistant to particular herbicides, leads to the creation of ‘superweeds’ is now shown to be valid and serious, as even the chemical companies now recognize and admit this is a problem,” says Kastel.

“In 2012 the USDA is proposing approving a new GE corn variety that is resistant to a different toxic herbicide, escalating the toxic treadmill in chemical-dependent agriculture,” said Jay Feldman, Executive Director of Beyond Pesticides. “This is nothing more than a band-aid solution to a serious problem, and will only give rise to more superweeds, more herbicide pollution in our environment, more herbicide poisoning, while likely leading to the need for even more toxic herbicides a couple of years down the line. This foolish circle has to end,” Feldman said.

Farm research groups like The Cornucopia Institute are also concerned with the impact of genetically engineered crops on organic farmers, whose organic crops are already at risk of contamination with Monsanto’s unnatural DNA, from pollen drift.

In its Environmental Assessment of the “drought tolerant” Monsanto corn, the USDA conceded that gene flow of corn pollen is likely to occur. It is well-established that corn pollen travels, and pollen from genetically engineered plants will contaminate natural corn plants.

“The irony, of course, is that organic fields and crops are much more drought tolerant, because common sense and field trials show healthy and biologically active organic soil retains moisture much better than tired and depleted soil on conventional monoculture farms, and organic crops are healthier and more robust than conventional crops,” said Charlotte Vallaeys, a researcher at Cornucopia.

“But Monsanto cannot profit from healthy soil and healthy organic crops, while they can profit from genetically engineering, patenting, and owning new life forms,” Vallaeys continued. “It’s unfortunate that the Obama administration is equally misguided by supporting Monsanto and Dow’s petitions and ignoring citizens’ demand for an immediate end to approving these genetically engineered crops in our food supply.”

More:

The newest genetically engineered soybean petitioned by Monsanto is one of the first to claim a public health benefit, since it has been engineered to contain higher levels of an omega-3 fatty acid, stearidonic acid.

“Genetically engineering a ubiquitous monoculture crop to contain higher levels of just one particular nutrient will not solve our public health crisis, and might even exacerbate it, since a healthy diet is about much more than simply increasing the levels of one particular omega-3 fatty acid,” said Vallaeys. “It’s another band-aid solution that will do little to address the root of the problem with our nation’s “nutrition” problem, which is people eating too many processed foods containing corn and soybean derivatives, and not eating a varied diet of nutrient-rich wholesome foods.”

The USDA surveyed 43 foods and compared their nutritional content in 1999 to original testing that took place in 1950. Half of the nutrients measured declined by 6 to 38%. “Industrial agriculture, as compared to organics, have relegated our diets to a lot of empty calories,” Vallaeys added.

On the campaign trail in 2007, the President said that genetically modified foods should be labeled because Americans “should know what they are buying.”

Despite promises of change, Mr. Obama appointed former Iowa Governor Tom Vilsack as USDA Secretary, who had gained notoriety in agricultural circles after being named Governor of the Year by the Biotechnology Industry Organization.

Obama subsequently appointed two pro-GMO agrochemical company lobbyists to powerful positions in his administration. Michael Taylor, a former Monsanto lobbyist, became food czar at the Food and Drug Administration. Islam Siddiqui, a lifelong pesticide lobbyist and GMO advocate, was appointed Chief Agricultural Negotiator.

These appointments revealed the tight grip that Monsanto and other biotech corporations have on elected officials, and raised further doubts regarding the promises for change by the current administration.

Adding insult to injury, the Obama USDA’s timing for announcing notices related to genetic engineering mirrors the Bush administration’s approach of burying the news and actively discouraging public participation. The FDA declared GMO salmon was safe, on the Friday before the long Labor Day weekend in 2010.

Then the USDA made their highly controversial decision to deregulate GMO alfalfa during the busy holiday season of 2010. Their decision is being challenged by The Cornucopia Institute, Beyond Pesticides, Center for Food Safety and scores of other plaintiffs in federal court.

More recently, the announcement that Monsanto’s newest genetically engineered corn had been deregulated, and that Monsanto and Dow had petitioned for additional approval of GMO corn and soybeans, came the week between Christmas and the New Year Day holiday.

“When attempting to bury controversial news, it’s not uncommon for the government to issue press releases on days when the public isn’t paying attention and the news media is on vacation,” noted Cornucopia’s Mark Kastel. “The Bush administration did the same thing when announcing that bovine spongiform encephalopathy (mad cow disease) had entered the domestic food chain.”

Citizens can comment on the proposed approval of Dow’s 2,4-D tolerant corn and Monsanto’s stearidonic acid soybeans until February 27, 2012.

An online petition opposing Dow’s 2,4-D corn variety, which will be sent to President Obama and Secretary Vilsack, can be signed here.

[wordspeak2]

I'd like to start the *positive* sub-thread. Foods that are really dope.

-vegetables that you grow yourself or your neighbors or some chill small farmer grows
- pink Himalayan salt, as mentioned earlier. that stuff is awesome.
-truly raw honey. it's amazing.
-tropical fruit. all of it. i just received my orders of twenty pounds of sapodillas and twelve pounds of persimmons.
-fresh seafood
-coconut milk, especially from Native Forest company, cause they don't use sketchy preservatives
-real cultured butter

[hanshan]

...

http://motherjones.com/print/149206

Study: Common Herbicide Causes Menstrual Trouble

While the EPA looks the other way, epidemiological evidence yet again implicates atrazine.

By Tom Philpott | Tue Nov. 29, 2011 4:00 AM PST

Yet again, scientists have looked at populations routinely exposed to the widely used herbicide atrazine and found trouble.

The latest: In a study [1] published by Envionmental Research (summarized here [2]), researchers found evidence that atrazine could be causing menstrual irregularities and low estrogen levels in women, even when it appears in drinking water at levels far below the EPA's limit of 3 parts per billion.

The study showed that women in ag-intensive areas of Illinois, where atrazine has been shown to leach into drinking water from farm fields, were significantly more likely to experience menstrual irregularities and low estrogen levels than women in ag-intensive areas of Vermont, where atrazine use is much lower.

The Vermont/Illinois paper comes on the heels of an analysis [3] of the Agricultural Health Study [4]—an ongoing look at people who regularly apply pesticides and their spouses—that found similar trends among women exposed to atrazine, as well as a 2009 study [5]finding that atrazine levels in drinking water tracked with low-weight birth incidences in Indiana.

Meanwhile, as I reported three weeks ago [6], an independent scientific panel convened by the EPA found "strong" evidence linking atrazine to thyroid cancer and "suggestive" evidence linking it to ovarian cancer, also based on studies of human populations exposed to the poison through drinking water. The panel declared that the EPA had been seriously underestimating the cancer risk posed by atrazine in drinking water.

Now, assessing the danger of a toxic chemical like atrazine, the second-most-used pesticide on US farm fields, is tricky. You can't ethically feed a suspected poison to people and see what happens.

You can use animals to gauge its effects, but it isn't perfectly clear how the results apply to humans. And you can find human populations known to be exposed to it and see if any health concerns turn up—a practice known as epidemiology, and exemplified by the studies I cite above. But here, too, results are uncertain, because real-world situations contain infinite variables that can't be controlled for.

But the absence of definitive proof that exposure to atrazine causes health trouble does not exonerate the lucrative agrichemical [7], as its maker, Syngenta, would have us believe. Until company execs volunteer to start quaffing the stuff and feeding it to their kids, animal studies and epidemiology are all we have. And for atrazine, both point to danger. (A recent University of California-Berkeley study [8] found that low-level exposure to the chemical emasculates male frogs).

After the EPA publicized the findings of its cancer panel earlier this month, an agency spokesperson told me that the EPA would not even consider banning the chemical until 2013, at the earliest. That decision looks more dubious than ever as troubling new evidence emerges about Syngenta's blockbuster herbicide.

Source URL: http://motherjones.com/tom-philpott/201 ... al-trouble
Links:
[1] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term ... %20vermont
[2] http://www.environmentalhealthnews.org/ ... gularities
[3] http://aje.oxfordjournals.org/content/160/12/1194.full
[4] http://aghealth.nci.nih.gov/
[5] http://ehp03.niehs.nih.gov/article/fetc ... hp.0900784
[6] http://motherjones.com/tom-philpott/201 ... cancer-epa
[7] http://motherjones.com/tom-philpott/201 ... pa-snoozes
[8] http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 151927.htm

...

[Sounder]

http://www.activistpost.com/2012/01/mon ... icide.html


Saturday, January 21, 2012
Monsanto’s Best-Selling Herbicide Roundup Linked to Infertility
Andre Evans
Activist Post

A recent study has found that Monsanto’s Roundup pesticide may be responsible for causing infertility. After reviewing the many already well-documented negative impacts Roundup has on the environment and living creatures, it is no surprise to add yet another item to the list.

Monsanto’s Best-Selling Herbicide Roundup Linked to Infertility

Researchers tested roundup on mature male rats at a concentration range between 1 and 10,000 parts per million (ppm), and found that within 1 to 48 hours of exposure, testicular cells of the mature rats were either damaged or killed. According to the study, even at a concentration of 1 ppm, the Roundup was able to affect the test subjects by decreasing their testosterone concentrations by as much as 35%.

How can such small levels of exposure have such a profound effect on the reproductive system?

Roundup, being a glyphosate-based herbicide is also known to have endocrine disrupting properties.

Much like BPA, glyphosate-based herbicides have the ability to interfere with the natural hormonal balance in the human body, thereby introducing a number of health risks along with even the smallest levels of exposure. These chemicals are strong enough to affect your metabolism, behavior and mood, reproductive organs, and even provoke cancer.

As a result, any plants that are sprayed with Roundup carry with them a chemical effect similar to that of other endocrine disruptors, offsetting the hormonal balance and causing adverse effects, despite even the smallest levels of exposure. This in part contributes to the number of males with increased fertility issues in more recent times.

It is no surprise that Monsanto, a company already infamous for a whole slew of dangerous concoctions, would also be responsible for affecting another major aspect of human health on a large scale.

Ultimately it is highly important to avoid any products sprayed with pesticides or herbicides for the many associated health risks – now fertility included. In addition to avoiding food which has been tarnished by this pesticide, you may also want to consider investing in a water filter. Glyphosate, the carcinogenic chemical Roundup contains, has been found to be contaminating the groundwater in areas where it is being applied.

Being aware of the hormonal disruptors you face in your daily life such as BPA and now Roundup is a must. Even the smallest levels of exposure can have large negative effects.

[slomo]

I don't know much about the website that published this article, but it's interesting and certainly consistent with known ecological and biological principles:

USDA Scientist Reveals All: Glyphosate Hazards to Crops, Soils, Animals, and Consumers

Don Huber painted a devastating picture of glyphosate and GM crops at UK Parliament (Dr Eva Sirinathsinghji)

In less than an hour, Don Huber, professor emeritus at Purdue University and USDA senior scientist ... delivered to the UK Houses of Parliament a damning indictment of glyphosate agriculture as a most serious threat to the environment, livestock, and human health.

Don Huber

Don Huber, Emeritus Professor at Purdue University and senior scientist on USDA’s National Plant Disease Recovery System, has been a plant physiologist and pathologist for over 40 years. His academic career began with 8 years as a cereal pathologist at the University of Idaho, and the next 35 years at Purdue University where he specialised in soil-borne disease control, physiology of disease, and microbial ecology. For the past 20 years, he has conducted extensive research into the effects of glyphosate on crops, in response to the increase in crop diseases on glyphosate-applied fields.

Since his letter to the US Secretary of State Tom Vilsak was leaked in February 2011, there has been a great deal of controversy over what Huber described as a pathogen “new to science” and abundant in glyphosate-tolerant GM crops (see [2] Emergency! Pathogen New to Science Found in Roundup Ready GM Crops?, SiS 50). As he concluded in the letter: “We are now seeing an unprecedented trend of increasing plant and animal diseases and disorders. This pathogen may be instrumental to understanding and solving this problem”.

His talk linked glyphosate to reduced nutrient availability in plants, increasing plant diseases, the emergence of a new pathogen, animal illness and possible effects on human health (see [3, 4] Glyphosate Tolerant Crops Bring Death and Disease, Scientists Reveal Glyphosate Poisons Crops and Soil, SiS 47).

Pathogen new to science

The conversion of US agriculture to monochemical herbicide practice has resulted in the extensive use of glyphosate herbicides. Coincidentally, farmers have been witnessing deterioration in the health of corn, soybean, wheat and other crops, and epidemics of diseases in small grain crops. All are associated with the extensive use of glyphosate, which has increased further since the introduction of glyphosate-tolerant, Roundup Ready (RR) crops.

Glyphosate immobilises nutrients required to maintain plant health and resistance to disease. This weakening of the plants defence could explain the infestation of GM crops with the new pathogen, which has now been observed in horse, sheep, pigs, cows, chicken, multiple animal tissues including reproductive parts (semen, amniotic fluid), manure, soil, eggs, milk, as well as the common fungal pathogen that is currently infesting RR crops, Fusarium solani fsp glycines mycelium. All are coming into contact with glyphosate either through direct exposure or consumption through animal feed. It is also highly abundant in crops suffering from plant Goss’ wilt and sudden death syndrome.

The pathogen can be cultured in the lab, and has been isolated from livestock foetal tissue, replicated in the lab and re-introduced back into the animals. It appears to be very common and may well be interacting with the effects of glyphosate on both plants and animals, exacerbating disease and causing reproductive failure in livestock (see below). Although great expectations have been placed on Huber to publish his findings, he insists that before this can be done, further resources are necessary to be able to characterise the ‘entity’ and identify what type of species it is, including sequencing of its genome. This is a slow process and once complete, it is his intention to publish the work in a peer-reviewed journal.

Understanding glyphosate’s mode of action

Recognising glyphosate’s mechanism of action is the key to understanding how it may exert detrimental effects on the health of crops, animals, and the environment alike. Glyphosate is a broad-spectrum herbicide that interacts with a range of physiological processes in the plant and its environment. Although it is most commonly recognised to work through inhibition of the plant enzyme 5-enolpyruvylshikimate-3-phosphate synthase (EPSPS) involved in the production of aromatic amino acids in the shikimate pathway, it was actually first patented as a strong metal-chelator that binds to metals including manganese, magnesium, iron, nickel, zinc and calcium, many of which are important micronutrients acting as co-factors for plant enzymes in different physiological processes including the plants’ defence system. Indeed, it is actually through chelation of manganese that the EPSPS enzyme is inhibited.

Rendering plants more susceptible to disease through glyphosate’s pathogenic activity is actually the way it exerts its herbicidal activity. This is done not just through immobilising nutrients in the plant but also impacting the agricultural system as a whole. Consistently, if glyphosate does not reach the root of a plant or the plant is grown in a sterile soil, the plant is not killed.

Once in the soil, glyphosate is later immobilised through the chelation of cations, and is therefore very stable and not easily degraded. However, phosphorus (including phosphorus fertilisers) can desorb the herbicide, making it active once again in the soil.

Glyphosate interferes negatively with many components of agriculture

Huber stressed that agriculture is an integrated system of many interacting components, which together determine crop health and therefore yield. This concept is undervalued, and the sooner this is recognised, the sooner we will be able to reap the full genetic potential of our crops.

The three main components of an agricultural system are 1) the biotic environment including beneficial organisms for example, nitrogen-fixing microbes and mineralizers; 2) the abiotic environment including nutrients, moisture, pH; and 3), defence against pathogens that damage crops. The genetic potential of a plant can be achieved by minimising the stress placed on these components through improving plant nutrition and physiology and prevention of diseases and pests.

more...

[slimmouse]

" Let food be thy medicine, and medicine be they food" - Hypocrates

So the USDA is being scaled down, thus by definition consolidating more power in the hands of the FDA. Phew.

Wouldnt it be simply fascinating to run a survey of 100 Western "joes" (who have actually heard of the FDA ),and ask them who does the testing of standards for food and Pharmecuticals ?

Im assuming we all know here of course, right ?

[eyeno]

" Let food be thy medicine, and medicine be they food" - Hypocrates

So the USDA is being scaled down, thus by definition consolidating more power in the hands of the FDA. Phew.

Wouldnt it be simply fascinating to run a survey of 100 Western "joes" (who have actually heard of the FDA ),and ask them who does the testing of standards for food and Pharmecuticals ?

Im assuming we all know here of course, right ?

"People think the FDA is protecting them--it isn't. What the FDA is
doing and what people think it's doing are as different as night and
day." Dr. Herbert Ley, Commissioner of the FDA, _San Francisco
Chronicle_, January 2, 1970

[Sounder]

http://poorrichards-blog.blogspot.com/2 ... brain.html

There has been a 55% increase in U.S. toxic food dyes just since the year 2000. There are over 15 million pounds of dyes put in foods, drinks, candy and medicine every year, and the FDA does nothing to protect consumers from the colorful barrage of poison. (http://www.vaughns-1-pagers.com/food/ar ... colors.htm)

Studies reveal that children have consumed as much as three pounds of dye by the age of twelve

[Perelandra]

By midnight tomorrow, May 26, we need to raise $1 million for the California right to Know GMO labeling Campaign so we don't miss out on a $1 million matching gift.
Please join the thousands who have already donated to this historic campaign by donating online, by mail or by phone before midnight Saturday.
Time is running out, so I'll keep this short.
If we all pitch in to help California pass this historic law to require mandatory GMO labeling, it's only a matter of time before all of us, in every state in the US, will finally be able to know if the food we buy contains genetically engineered ingredients.
Big Biotech and Big Food oppose this law. And they are backed by Big Money. Lots of it. Money they've accumulated by poisoning our food and our planet. They've already promised to spend $60 million to convince consumers not to pass this GMO labeling law.
With public opinion on our side, we don't need $60 million. But we need at least several million dollars to stand our ground.
Several million honest dollars, raised by honest organizations, honest companies and honest people like you who are fed up with being fed junk.
We can do this - with your help. With just one day left, we need about $100,000. We're counting on small donations of $5, $10, $20 to get us there.
Every dollar counts! Please donate today and tell Monsanto: We have the right to know if our food contains GMOs. Thank you!
For an Organic Future,

Ronnie Cummins
Director, Organic Consumers Association and Organic Consumers Fund

http://www.organicconsumersfund.org/donate/moneybomb.cfm

[Aurataur]

http://www.organicconsumersfund.org/donate/moneybomb.cfm

Thanks, Perelandra! $50 donated.

[Iamwhomiam]

Related to Perlandra's most recent posting above, the NY Times published this article yesterday:

Battle Brewing Over Labeling of Genetically Modified Food

By AMY HARMON and ANDREW POLLACK
Published: May 24, 2012

(Photos & video at link)

GREAT BARRINGTON, Mass. — On a recent sunny morning at the Big Y grocery here, Cynthia LaPier parked her cart in the cereal aisle. With a glance over her shoulder and a quick check of the ingredients, she plastered several boxes with hand-designed stickers from a roll in her purse. “Warning,” they read. “May Contain GMO’s (Genetically Modified Organisms).”

For more than a decade, almost all processed foods in the United States — cereals, snack foods, salad dressings — have contained ingredients from plants whose DNA was manipulated in a laboratory. Regulators and many scientists say these pose no danger. But as Americans ask more pointed questions about what they are eating, popular suspicions about the health and environmental effects of biotechnology are fueling a movement to require that food from genetically modified crops be labeled, if not eliminated.

Labeling bills have been proposed in more than a dozen states over the last year, and an appeal to the Food and Drug Administration last fall to mandate labels nationally drew more than a million signatures. There is an iPhone app: ShopNoGMO.

The most closely watched labeling effort is a proposed ballot initiative in California that cleared a crucial hurdle this month, setting the stage for a probable November vote that could influence not just food packaging but the future of American agriculture.

Tens of millions of dollars are expected to be spent on the election showdown. It pits consumer groups and the organic food industry, both of which support mandatory labeling, against more conventional farmers, agricultural biotechnology companies like Monsanto and many of the nation’s best-known food brands like Kellogg’s and Kraft.

The heightened stakes have added fuel to a long-simmering debate over the merits of genetically engineered crops, which many scientists and farmers believe could be useful in meeting the world’s rapidly expanding food needs.

Supporters of labeling argue that consumers have a right to know when food has been modified with genes from another species, which they say is fundamentally different from the selective breeding process used in nearly all crops.

Almost all the corn and soybeans grown in the United States now contain DNA derived from bacteria. The foreign gene makes the soybeans resistant to an herbicide used in weed control, and causes the corn to produce its own insecticide.

“It just makes me nervous when you take genetic matter from something else that wouldn’t have been done in nature and put it into food,” said Ms. LaPier, 44, a mental health counselor whose guerrilla labeling was inspired by the group Label It Yourself. She worries that her daughter, 5, could one day suffer ill effects like allergies.

The F.D.A. has said that labeling is generally not necessary because the genetic modification does not materially change the food.

Farmers, food and biotech companies and scientists say that labels might lead consumers to reject genetically modified food — and the technology that created it — without understanding its environmental and economic benefits. A national science advisory organization in 2010 termed those benefits “substantial,” noting that existing biotech crops have for years let farmers spray fewer or less harmful chemicals, though the emergence of resistant weeds and insects threatens to blunt that effect.

In a letter circulating on social networks, one Iowa farmer, Tim Burrack, criticized this month’s O, the Oprah Magazine, which cited research linking genetic engineering to health concerns that many scientists have discredited and proposed “5 Ways to Lessen Your Exposure to GMO’s.” Mr. Burrack urged Ms. Winfrey not to “demonize GM crops.”

But some food experts argue that food manufacturers have an obligation to label. Consumers “have a right to take genetic modification into consideration,” said Marion Nestle, a professor of nutrition, food studies and public health at New York University. “And if the companies think consumer objections are stupid and irrational, they should explain the benefits of their products.”

Until now, Americans have made little fuss about genetically modified crops on the market compared with Europeans, who require that such foods be labeled. Demonstrators in Britain are threatening to destroy some genetically modified wheat being grown in a research trial near London.

The current push for labeling in this country stems in part from a broadening of the genetically modified menu to include herbicide-resistant alfalfa and the possible approval this year of a fast-growing salmon, which would be the first genetically engineered animal in the food supply.

Gary Hirshberg, chairman of Stonyfield Farms, the organic yogurt company, has raised more than $1 million for the Just Label It campaign to influence the F.D.A. after fighting approval of engineered alfalfa, arguing that cross-pollination would contaminate organic crops fed to cows.

“This is an issue of transparency, truth and trust in the food system,” Mr. Hirshberg said.

Biotechnology companies say that the California labeling initiative, while portrayed as promoting consumer choice, is really an effort by some consumer and environmental groups and organic food growers to drive genetically modified foods off the market.

“These folks are trying to use politics to do what they can’t accomplish at the supermarket, which is increase market share,” said Cathleen Enright, an executive vice president at the Biotechnology Industry Organization, which represents Monsanto and DuPont.

Rather than label food with what consumers might regard as a skull and crossbones, the companies say food producers may ultimately switch to ingredients that are not genetically modified, as they did in Europe.

If the California initiative passes, “we will be on our way to getting GE-tainted foods out of our nation’s food supply for good,” Ronnie Cummins, director of the Organic Consumers Association, wrote in an letter in March seeking donations for the California ballot initiative. “If a company like Kellogg’s has to print a label stating that their famous Corn Flakes have been genetically engineered, it will be the kiss of death for their iconic brand in California — the eighth-largest economy in the world — and everywhere else.”

The Grocery Manufacturers Association, which represents major food brands, declined to comment on what members would do if the California measure passed. But Rick Tolman, chief executive of the National Corn Growers Association, said after meeting with food executives this month that he had the “strong impression” that they would rather reformulate their ingredients than label their products genetically engineered. “They think a label will undermine their brand,” he said.

When asked if they wanted genetically engineered foods to be labeled, about 9 in 10 Americans said that they did, according to a 2010 Thomson Reuters-NPR poll.

The current call for transparency has resonated among some Americans upset by reports of BPA (a chemical used in plastics) in food packaging and pink slime (an ammonia-treated additive) in meat. Ms. LaPier has made an effort to label Kashi cereals, which advertise themselves as natural, since learning they contain genetically modified soy. Since discovering the Label It Yourself Facebook page in March, she has added several of her own pictures to its gallery of handmade labels on grocery store shelves across the nation.

Depending on the jurisdiction, such labeling could constitute a trademark violation against the manufacturer or a trespass against the store. No one has been prosecuted, but also, no one has been caught, according to a spokesman for the group.

So far, the F.D.A. has said only that it is studying the labeling petition; none of the state-level labeling bills proposed over the last year have passed.

For labeling proponents, California, where the Legislature would be bypassed by a direct popular vote, is the big prize.

A decade ago in Oregon, a similar measure that appeared to have the support of two-thirds of voters was rejected after a last-minute spending blitz by labeling opponents. With the financial backing of the organic industry, labeling supporters in California say they will be better prepared.
~~~~~~~~~~~

The California labeling law is a very important piece of legislation that everyone should work to see passed, no matter where you're located.

Over the past six months I've organized and lobbied for the passage of the Fair Farm Bill at the national level with Food & Water Watch, which will probably not come up for a vote until after the elections are held in November.

All of the links I've included above have some information that will help you to learn more about what's at stake, just in case you haven't been paying attention to the other informative postings earlier in this thread.