PepsiCo’s Naked Juices Have to Drop ‘All Natural’ Label After $9 Million Class Action Lawsuit
by Christina Sarich July 22nd, 2013
Image from beveragedaily.com.
While government agencies like the FDA keep stalling on demanding rigorous scientific testing of numerous questionable ingredients, GMO foods, and the correct labeling of such foods, PepsiCo has recently agreed to settle out of court for $9 million over a class action lawsuit that claimed ‘natural’ and ‘non-GMO’ on their bottles was misleading since they are made with GMO ingredients, as well as synthetic and ‘unnatural’ items.
The plaintiffs in the suit claimed that PepsiCo gave the “the false impression that the beverages vitamin content is due to the nutritious fruits and juices, rather than the added synthetic compounds such as calcium pantothenate (synthetically produced from formaldehyde)” and “Fibersol-2 (a proprietary synthetic digestion-resistant fiber produced by Archer Daniels Midland and developed by a Japanese chemical company), fructooligosaccharides (a synthetic fiber and sweetener), and inulin (an artificial and invisible fiber added to foods to … increase fiber content without the typical fiber mouth-feel).”
The amount of synthetic additives in Naked juices are quite possibly more than anything ‘natural’ at all. It certainly isn’t a ‘100% juice” smoothie as the labeling on the bottle currently states. Naked juices contain up to 11 different chemicals including: niacinamide, d-alpha tocopherol acetate, cyanocobalamin, and pyridoxine hydrochloride, just to name a few.
And as you may have expected, of course Pepsi Co donated more than $2.5 million dollars to help defeat Proposition 37 in California that would have required companies like Pepsi to label all products that contain GMOs in any form. The ‘Right to Know” ballot was defeated due to special interest groups like Syngenta, Dow, Monsanto, Pepsi Co, and others who helped finance its demise.
If you would like to avoid PepsiCo altogether since they are actively trying to push GMO foods and chemical laden drinks on the public while trying to pass them off as ‘health’ food, you might have a hard time ignoring the company – they are in over 200 countries and make everything from Pepsi Cola to Frito Lay Chips, Tropicana Juices, Quaker Oates and Gatorade. But learn of what they create, and you can steer clear.
You can also email PepsiCo’s Senior Director with your opinion about their GMO and unnatural products. The Organic Consumers Association has created a simple way to do send a message to the senior director of Communications, Mike Torres.
If you want real juice, try putting some organic apples, lemons and kale in a juicer. No corporate lies need to be added to the recipe.
niacinamide, d-alpha tocopherol acetate, cyanocobalamin, and pyridoxine hydrochloride
For the record: vitamins B3, E, B12, and B6, respectively. Good piece overall and the value of vitamin fortification is certainly worth questioning, but someone at "Natural Society" surely realized they were hyping a little bit by only including the scary chemical names.
The battle to bring GM food to Europe has been fiercely fought for years. Most assumed it would be continue to rage for many more. Which makes this recent announcement extremely surprising:
The world's largest producer of seeds, Monsanto, has apparently given up on attempts to spread its genetically modified plant varieties in Europe. A German media report said the firm would end all lobbying for approval.
The German newspaper "taz" reported Friday that US agriculture behemoth Monsanto had dropped any plans to have farmers grow its genetically modified (GM) plant varieties in Europe.
Monsanto Europe spokesman Brandon Mitchener was quoted as saying the company would no longer engage in any lobbying fur such plants on the continent, adding that at the moment the firm was unwilling to apply for approval of any GM plants.
This is very curious. Monsanto may be many things, but it is not a company that gives up. However, there is a clue in the last sentence of the above quotation: "at the moment the firm was unwilling to apply for approval of any GM plants". That suggests this is only a temporary halt, and that it will be back.
So why might it do that? Is there anything happening that might have triggered this move?
Why, yes: TAFTA/TTIP. In fact, the issue of GM crops is likely to be one of the biggest sticking points. The US side is insisting that "Sanitary and Phytosanitary" (SPS) measures must address GM foodstuffs, with the European side adamant that it won't drop its precautionary principle.
So how might that apparent contradiction be resolved? A recent meeting on SPS gives a clue:
WTO members celebrated the 50th anniversary of 186-member Codex Alimentarius, which sets international standards for food safety, by calling, on 27–28 June 2013, for continued support for the body, and for trade measures to be based on science.
The calls came in a two-day meeting of the WTO’s Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures (SPS) Committee, which consists of all 159 WTO members and deals with food safety and animal and plant health — measures having an increasing impact on trade.
Specifically:
“The increase in the number of SPS measures that are not based on international standards, guidelines and recommendations, or that lack scientific justification, is a point of concern that has often been raised by many members in the SPS Committee and other contexts,” Brazil observed.
The discussion of the six new specific trade concerns and the 10 previously raised and discussed in this meeting reflected that theme.
They covered; processed meat, genetically modified organisms (GMOs), restrictions related to the Japanese nuclear plant accident, orchid tissue culture plantlets in flasks, citrus fruits (a complaint by South Africa against the EU about black spot, which is the first dispute settlement case in the International Plant Protection Convention), offal, salmon, pesticide residues, sheepmeat, phthalates (materials added to plastics in food and drink containers) in wines and spirits, shrimp, mad cow disease (BSE), GMO pollen in honey, Indonesia’s port closures, and pine trees and other products.
As can be seen there, GMOs are mentioned twice.
Well, "trade measures to be based on science" sounds reasonable enough, doesn't it? Except, as I've discussed at some length recently, the "science" actually means "scientists employed by companies"; that is, it is far from being independent or disinterested. By redefining such company testing as "scientific", it can then be used to push through products that have never been tested by national food safety bodies.
This approach seems certain to crop up during the TAFTA/TTIP negotiations, and would offer Monsanto a fresh opportunity to push its GM products in the EU. What it will be aiming for is that US "testing" must be accepted in the EU too - that's precisely what TAFTA/TTIP is all about - which would mean automatic approval for its products there. Hence the recent pull-out - it won't even need to make applications in the future.
But it gets even better for Monsanto. Another key area for TAFTA/TTIP is investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS). Again, I've written extensively about this elsewhere. Here I just want to explore how Monsanto might use it to blackmail European governments into accepting GM crops.
Essentially, ISDS allows companies to sue entire countries or even regions like the EU for alleged loss of future profits (see this terrifying example from Canada.) So once TAFTA/TTIP is signed with ISDS provisions, Monsanto will be able to threaten to sue the EU and its member states if they don't allow its GM products to be sold there.
The logic would be that it invested money in Europe in the "reasonable" expectation - based on "science", of course - that it could sell its products as a result. Since the EU authorities and national governments have proved so hostile to GM, it was unable to do that. It would therefore claim that it could sue the EU for hundreds of millions - possibly billions - of Euros for its "lost" profits.
This is not some mad fantasy: it is already playing out around the world, as governments find that they cannot apply laws designed to protect public health and safety, since they would have the knock-on effect of reducing some multinational's profits, and therefore makes them subject to ISDS claims.
I believe this is the main reason for Monsanto's temporary pull-out from the European approvals process: it feels confident that ISDS provisions will be included in TAFTA/TTIP - indeed, both the EU and US sides have said they want them - and equally confident that it will be able to sue the socks off the EU and national states if they don't simply wave through GM products in their markets, no further approval required....
Failure of Monsanto Seed Leads to New Rootworm Insecticide Surge
Wednesday, July 31, 2013 | 1 comments by Heather Callaghan
Are farmers getting disillusioned?
In the Midwest states like Minnesota, Nebraska, Illinois and Iowa farmers are baffled by a resurgence of corn rootworm that Monsanto technology promised to protect against. New insight comes from independent farm consultant Dan Steiner whose phone rings off the hook after a storm where farmers face blown over crops because rootworm larvae have destroyed the root systems.
Let it be known that, for awhile, biotech crops did seem to rescue farmers around 2003. Bt corn delivered results with initially satisfactory yields, pest control, and limited chemical use. This has been shortlived, however, and has created more issues than the original problem of decreased crop yields - but still more money for Monsanto in the way of increased insecticide use.
NPR reports: It appears that farmers have gotten part of the message: Biotechnology alone will not solve their rootworm problems. But instead of shifting away from those corn hybrids, or from corn altogether, many are doubling down on insect-fighting technology, deploying more chemical pesticides than before. Companies like Syngenta or AMVAC Chemical that sell soil insecticides for use in corn fields are reporting huge increases in sales: 50 or even 100 percent over the past two years.
This is a return to the old days, before biotech seeds came along, when farmers relied heavily on pesticides.
Likewise, where farmers are experiencing other super growths like resistant weeds, they have to spend more money on old-time agrarian measures to undo the original problem they were urgently trying to prevent. The monsters have come back in greater force, deriving more power from chemical resistance thanks to receiving transgenic material.
Steiner remembers those days and the very real dangers of pesticides: We used to get sick [from the chemicals]. Because we'd always dig [in the soil] to see how the corn's coming along. We didn't wear the gloves and everything, and we'd kind of puke in the middle of the day. Well, I think we were low-dosing poison on ourselves!
Monsanto likes to downplay instances of fields blowing over to extreme, rare circumstances. They, as well as Bayer CropScience and Syngenta, actually often resort to blaming their customers.
Biotech is passing the buck - farmers are either doubling down on chemical use or switching to other GM crops. Steiner has a third option that experts agree is best in the longrun: Starve the rootworms, he tells his clients. Just switch that field to another crop. 'One rotation can do a lot of good,' he says. 'Go to beans, wheat, oats. It's the No. 1 right thing to do.'
Entomologist Lance Meinke points out the circumstances driving farmers to continue growing corn year after year: I think economics are driving everything. Corn prices have been so high the last three years, everybody is trying to protect every kernel. People are just really going for it right now, to be as profitable as they can.
Meinke says anything is likely to turn into a weapon if a crop is repeated like that. But under the circumstances, farmers feel compelled to keep planting and spraying to keep up. In this cycle, it is very likely the chemicals will stop working.
Colombian Farmers Defeat Monsanto: Win Back Control of Seeds After Prolonged Strike
by geobear7 • 17Sep2013
By Oscar León The Real News
Colombians in Trafalgar Square show their support for the farmers’ strike in Colombia. Protesters are demonstrating against the free trade agreement with the US; seed multinationals; GMO crops, and seed patents. Photo by Andres Pantoja
On Sept. 10 in Colombia, after 21 days of a nationwide strike by thousands of farmers, who were supported by bus and truck drivers, miners, students, and others joining massive demonstrations in cities and towns all around the country in places as far as Boyacá, Cundinamarca, Cauca, Huila, Putumayo, Caldas, Cundinamarca, and Nariño, and blocking more than 40 roads, in an historic moment, protesting farmers forced the Colombian government to negotiate the rejection of a farm bill and the release of detained protesters.
On Sunday, September 8, Vice President Angelino Garzón met with the Strike Negotiating Commission in Popayan and agreed to suspend Law 970, the one that gave control over seeds to the government [which made it illegal for farmers to save seeds, any seeds, forcing them to buy patented ones].
They also were promised the release of the 648 arrested during the strike and the creation of a new mining law.
Under this first and provisional agreement, the government will compensate the farmers for their losses when competing with cheaper products imported under as much as ten free market treaties with countries all around the world. In other cases it will suspend the importation of such products.
The strike was ended and negotiations started to discuss the farmers’ proposals. The process of negotiation, as well as the final agreement and its implementation, will be verified by the United Nations.
In Putumayo in the south of the country, farmers leaders and other actors of Colombian society met with President Santos and other authorities and officially started the negotiations after signing the initial document.
The destruction of the farmers’ rice stock seeds, seeds they were keeping for the following year’s planting time, occurred in Campo Alegre and other towns in 2012. For some these images became the symbol of the farmers’ strike fighting for the right to keep their seeds. Seed control was described by President Santos as having Colombia “tune up to international reality”.
Having the Law 970 suspended is a partial yet symbolic victory for Colombia’s social movement. Not only they got the seed control suspended, but most importantly, they got the Government to recognize their leadership, the Mesa de interlocución agraria, Agricultural Dialogue Table, which was elected by the the Coalition of Colombia’s Social and Political Movements to negotiatie with the government when they were organizing the strike.
The press reported a number attempts by the government to negotiate and extract concessions with various farmer groups. But 13 regions where still on strike, and the government was forced to finally sit down on the farmers’ table and negotiate.
This is a profound contrast with Colombia’s recent past. Human rights groups such as Amnesty International have documented attacks on Colombian farmers and union leaders, who have been kidnapped, tortured, and massacred by paramilitary forces, and sometimes even by the army, according to a number of reports published by Amnesty International.
One of the towns that initiated the social strife was El Catatumbo, in Tibu, north of Santander in the northwest of Colombia, where local farmers resisted 51 days in street battles like this one in the video.
Catatumbo’s fight inspired thousand of other farmers who “lost their fear”, and about a month after that, they started a nationwide farmers strike, a strike that 21 days after it began, managed to force the government to suspend law 970 and at least study their other proposals.
To push a resumption of negotiations, the strikers opened the roads they had blockaded. The negotiations are ongoing, and they have to decide over more structural issues.
These are some of their petitions:
> To set the prices for agricultural products independently of the international market, and to set a fund to cover the difference so local farmers can get a fair price and the government can guarantee their crops;
> A reduction in the price of gas and diesel, road tolls, and reduction on the price of fertilizers and other supplies;
> Cancellation of the current agricultural policy, including the control of seeds, but also other policies not favorable to small and medium farms;
> To stop the importation of many products, but most importantly to suspend and review the free trade agreements with United States, European Union, China, and other countries;
> Pardon for small and medium farmers’ debts, and the adoption of “softer credit” for farmers via public banks;
> To stop and reverse the sale of public lands to international owners, and give them back to local farmers.
The mining sector also pledged to the strike and even incorporated its demands, some of which are:
> The participation of traditional and small mining operators when setting policy that regulates the industry;
> To stop and even revert some mining concessions and public contracts until it’s determined if the local communities are affected, if the resources generated in the mines benefit them, and if local small operations are allowed to work as well.
MINER (SUBTITLED TRANSL.): In my town, the big open mines will destroy a way of life we’ve had for 500 years. This fills our hearts with sorrow, because we have historically fought for those lands, for the tradition of artisanal mining.
LEÓN: For the population in general, they demand investment on rural populations and cities to get access to education, health care, public services, and affordable housing. Many of these demands go against the core of the neoliberal policies adopted by previous Colombian administrations.
The strike represented a broader segment of population than first thought. What started as a farmers and miners strike very soon turned into a general strike, with bus drivers, truckers, students, and even general population in the streets claiming for their own demands.
Street battles of all kinds took place, like this one in Bosa, La Libertad, a neighborhood outside Bogotá, where many protesters attempted to take a police station by storm.
The strike organization reported 660 human rights violations that were documented. The police brutality and the negative by president to recognize the farmers’ leadership, as well as the dire economic situation Colombians live every day, with a minimum salary of $291 and a gas price of $4.6 a gallon. All of this created a sort of perfect storm that exploded in August.
Police reported 648 arrested. The farmers’ organization claimed 262 of them were illegally detained. There was 485 wounded and 12 dead on a week marked by protest. And while Santos put up a political fight, at the end of the day, after his popularity went down to an all time record low of 21 percent, his government was forced to admit that it needed to recognize and negotiate with the national strike’s leaders.
We are yet to see if the Santos Administration will concede any more of the farmers demands, especially the more structural ones.
####
World War 4 Report:
However, just as the peasant strike ended Sept. 10, some 330,000 public school teachers across Colombia opened an indefinite strike, accusing the government of failing to deliver on promises made to pay an estimated $40 billion in back wages. Leaders of the Colombia Federation of Education Workers (FECODE) charged that the government is intentionally bleeding the national school system with the intention of privatizing it. (UPI, Sept. 11; BBC Mundo, Sept. 10)
Harvard Study: Fluoride Lowers Children’s Intelligence By 7 IQ Points
Posted on February 10, 2014 by WashingtonsBlog
Government and Top University Studies: Fluoride Lowers IQ and Causes Other Health Problems
The Harvard School for Public Health reports:
In a meta-analysis, researchers from Harvard School of Public Health (HSPH) and China Medical University in Shenyang for the first time combined 27 studies and found strong indications that fluoride may adversely affect cognitive development in children. Based on the findings, the authors say that this risk should not be ignored, and that more research on fluoride’s impact on the developing brain is warranted.
The study [click for abstract] was published online in Environmental Health Perspectives on July 20, 2012.
Environmental Health Perspectives is a publication of the United States National Institutes of Health’s National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences.
Harvard’s announcement continues:
The average loss in IQ was reported as a standardized weighted mean difference of 0.45, which would be approximately equivalent to seven IQ points for commonly used IQ scores with a standard deviation of 15. Some studies suggested that even slightly increased fluoride exposure could be toxic to the brain. Thus, children in high-fluoride areas had significantly lower IQ scores than those who lived in low-fluoride areas. The children studied were up to 14 years of age, but the investigators speculate that any toxic effect on brain development may have happened earlier, and that the brain may not be fully capable of compensating for the toxicity.“Fluoride seems to fit in with lead, mercury, and other poisons that cause chemical brain drain,” Grandjean says. “The effect of each toxicant may seem small, but the combined damage on a population scale can be serious, especially because the brain power of the next generation is crucial to all of us.”
Indeed, the following video interviewing National Research Council scientists, a Nobel laureate in medicine, a professor of dentistry and other professionals summarizes the evidence fairly succinctly … and makes the case that our understanding of the damage fluoride can cause to our brains is like our growing understanding in the 1970s of the dangers of lead:
(We started the video at 18 minutes in; but the whole video is worth watching.)
Numerous other government reports have shown fluoride’s adverse impacts on intelligence:
[A] 2006 National Academy of Science [report ] reviews the scientific studies which have been performed on fluoride, and concludes:
It is apparent that fluorides have the ability to interfere with the functions of the brain and the body by direct and indirect means. (bottom of page 222).
The NAS report also notes that fluoride may actually impair intelligence, and that more testing should be done in this regard.
Indeed, studies from around the world continue to find that exposure to sodium fluoride – especially in the very young – lowers IQ. See this and this. The same is true for rats exposed to fluoride. See this and this. And see the studies listed here.
Dr. Vyvyan Howard – a PhD fetal pathologist, who is a professor of developmental toxico-pathology at the University of Liverpool and University of Ulster, president of the International Society of Doctors for the Environment and former president of the Royal Microscopical Society and the International Society for Stereology, and general editor of the Journal of Microscopy – said in a 2008 Canadian television interview (short, worthwhile video at the link) that studies done in several countries show that children’s IQ are likely to be lower in high natural water fluoride areas.
He said that these studies are plausible because fluoride is known to affect the thyroid hormone which affects intelligence and fluoride is also a known neurotoxicant. Such studies have not been conducted in countries that artificially fluoridate the water such as the US, UK and Canada, but should be, he said.
And as the International Business Times noted last month on the newest Chinese study on fluoride:
Exposure to fluoride may lower children’s intelligence, says a study published in Environmental Health Perspectives, a publication of the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences. Fluoride is added to 70 percent of U.S. public drinking water supplies.
***
About 28 percent of the children in the low-fluoride area scored as bright, normal or higher intelligence compared to only 8 percent in the “high” fluoride area of Wamaio.
In the high-fluoride city, 15 percent had scores indicating mental retardation and only 6 percent in the low-fluoride city. The authors of the study eliminated both lead exposure and iodine deficiency as possible causes for the lowered IQs.
One scientist – Jennifer Luke – alleged in a 2001 scientific article that fluoride accumulates in the brain (specifically, in the structure of the pineal gland) more than it accumulates in our bones. In other words, she implies that fluoride may accumulate more in the brain than in the teeth, doing more harm than good (here’s Luke’s 1997 PhD dissertation on the topic.)
The 2006 National Academy of Sciences report corroborates some of Luke’s allegations:
As with other calcifying tissues, the pineal gland can accumulate fluoride (Luke 1997, 2001). Fluoride has been shown to be present in the pineal glands of older people (14-875 mg of fluoride per kg of gland in persons aged 72-100 years), with the fluoride concentrations being positively related to the calcium concentrations in the pineal gland, but not to the bone fluoride, suggesting that pineal fluoride is not necessarily a function of cumulative fluoride exposure of the individual (Luke 1997, 2001). Fluoride has not been measured in the pineal glands of children or young adults, nor has there been any investigation of the relationship between pineal fluoride concentrations and either recent or cumulative fluoride intakes.
Donald Miller – cardiac surgeon and Professor of Surgery at the University of Washington – alleges:
Fluoride … inhibits the enzyme acetylcholinesterase in the brain, which is involved in transmitting signals along nerve cells.
***
Fluoride also damages the brain, both directly and indirectly. Rats given fluoridated water at a dose of 4 ppm develop symptoms resembling attention deficit-hyperactivity disorder. High concentrations of fluoride accumulate in the pineal gland, which produces serotonin and melatonin.
***
People with Alzheimer’s disease have high levels of aluminum in their brains. Fluoride combines with aluminum in drinking water and takes it through the blood-brain barrier into the brain. Dr. Russell Blaylock, MD, a neurosurgeon, spells out in chilling detail the danger fluoride poses to one’s brain and health in general in his book Health and Nutrition Secrets that can Save Your Life (2002).
Time Magazine notes:
What has also changed is how much toxicologists know about the harmful effects of fluoride compounds. Ingested in high doses, fluoride is indisputably toxic; it was once commonly used in rat poison. Hydrogen fluoride is regulated as a hazardous pollutant in emissions from chemical plants and has been linked to respiratory illness. Even in toothpaste, sodium fluoride is a health concern. In 1997 the Food and Drug Administration toughened the warning on every tube to read, “If more than used for brushing is accidentally swallowed, get medical help or contact a poison-control center right away.”
ABC News from Raleigh-Durham reports:
Study after study dating back to the 80s from respected academic and scientific institutions that connect fluoride to health dangers. Some of the studies were funded by the government. They suggest fluoride can be linked to brain, blood and bone deficiencies in humans.
***
“EPA’s drinking water standards are supposed to protect all persons against anticipated adverse health effects of the contaminant in question,” explained Kathleen Thiessen – one of the scientists who worked on the 400-page study. “And we concluded after three years worth of work that the drinking water standard for fluoride was not protected and cannot be assumed to be safe for humans.”
Thiessen said the EPA was warned about potential fluoride health dangers by one of its own chemists more than a decade ago. Dr. William Hirzy testified before a Senate subcommittee in 2000. He was representing the views of EPA scientists and staff who analyze hazards in the environment.
“In 1997, we voted to oppose fluoridation, and our opposition has grown stronger as more adverse data on the practice has come in,” said Hirzy.
“The CDC and others say whatever beneficial effect there is from fluoride is from topical use. It’s not from swallowing it. It never has been from swallowing it,” said Thiessen.
The I-Team discovered most western countries do not fluoridate their water. Dental records kept by the World Health Organization show tooth decay in those countries has declined at the same rate as here in the United States – where we do fluoridate our water.
Indeed, an overwhelming number of scientific studies conclude that cavity levels are falling worldwide … even in countries which don’t fluoridate water. Specifically, the scientific literature shows that – when fluoridation of water supplies is stopped – cavities do not increase (but may in some cases actually decrease). See this, this, this, this, this and this.
World Health Organization Data (2004) - Tooth Decay Trends (12 year olds) in Fluoridated vs. Unfluoridated Countries: who dmft An Overwhelming Number of Scientific Studies Conclude That Cavity Levels are Falling Worldwide ... Even In Countries Which Dont Fluoridate Water
No wonder more and more countries are stopping fluoridation.
In fact, many prominent leaders of the pro-water fluoridation movement have recently admitted publicly that they were wrong. That includes: ◾John Colquhoun, DDS, Principal Dental Officer for Auckland, New Zealand and chair of that country’s Fluoridation Promotion Committee, reviewed New Zealand’s dental statistics in an effort to convince skeptics that fluoridation was beneficial and found that tooth decay rates were the same in fluoridated and nonfluoridated places, which prompted him to re-examine the classic fluoridation studies. He withdrew his support for it in “Why I Changed my Mind About Water Fluoridation” (Perspectives in Biology and Medicine 1997;41:29—44). ◾Richard G. Foulkes, MD, a health care administrator and former assistant professor in the Department of Health Care and Epidemiology at the University of British Columbia also switched from pro to anti-water fluoridation after studying the issue. ◾And Dr. Hardy Limeback PhD, DDS – one of the 12 scientists who served on the 2006 National Academy of Sciences review of fluoride, and Head of Preventive Dentistry at University of Toronto – wrote “Why I am Now Officially Opposed to Adding Fluoride to Drinking Water”
The problems are obvious: food safety scandals, the death of family farming, food supply insecurity, the revolving door between corporate lobbyists and government regulators, and many more. The soluion should be equally obvious: rolling up our sleeves and getting in the garden. Join us today as we explore this simple, natural solution to one of our most fundamental problems.
The problems are obvious: food safety scandals, the death of family farming, food supply insecurity, the revolving door between corporate lobbyists and government regulators, and many more. The soluion should be equally obvious: rolling up our sleeves and getting in the garden. Join us today as we explore this simple, natural solution to one of our most fundamental problems.
Personally I think this is really important - I think that learning and applying Permaculture principles is probably one of the most valuable skills one could do at present. That and aquaponics
(Reuters) - Monsanto's Indian subsidiary expects to submit final trial results for its genetically modified (GM) corn to lawmakers within a year for the government to then decide on a commercial launch, the company's country head said on Friday.
India does not currently allow the growing of GM food crops but the government of Prime Minister Narendra Modi, keen to improve farms' productivity, has encouraged open field trials after a five-year de facto ban.
"We are close to the final stage in corn," Shilpa Divekar Nirula, chief executive of Monsanto India, told Reuters.
"We finished the trial in last kharif (June-October) in Maharashtra state; that is harvested and completed."
Nirula said the company will take up to a year to collate and submit the data after finishing trials that began about six years ago.
The resulting corn will be insect- and herbicide-tolerant, helping raise yields by 15-20 percent, she said. The current average corn yield in India is 2-2.25 tonnes per hectare, compared with 10 tonnes in the top producer United States.
The final-stage corn trials are the closest Monsanto has come to launching GM food in India after popularizing transgenic cotton that now accounts for 95 percent of the fiber's cultivation in the country.
From being a net importer, India has since the launch of the GM cotton in 2002 become the world's second-largest producer and exporter of the fiber.
Monsanto India's shares have risen by 150 percent in the past year compared with a 37 percent rise in the Indian S&P BSE Sensex market index <0#.BSESN>. It had net revenues of 5.8 billion rupees ($93 million) last fiscal year.
Despite poor monsoon rains reducing overall area under cultivation, the company's revenue is likely to be flat or slightly better in the current year ending March 31 due to good sales of GM cotton that typically needs less water, Nirula said.
But the company faces opposition from local and international activists that fear the U.S. company could monopolize the seed market in the country where small and marginal farmers make up most of the total farming population.
Nirula said Monsanto had been in the country long enough to be considered an Indian company but it needed to educate farmers and raise general awareness to counter concerns that GM crops are not safe.
"There is an opportunity for us to step out and show our face, she said.
"The more we are out there to answer questions or clarify certain things, I think (the perception) will change."
Monsanto, the US-based biotech and agribusiness colossus, is seeking a merger with its European competitor Syngenta. Such a transaction would create a gargantuan corporation that would control 45% of the world’s commercial seeds and 30% of the farm chemicals market. This is a time of major mergers in the ag sector. The largest of these took place last November, when two of the largest US players, Dow and Dupont, agreed to merge. The resulting spawn of both will have no less than 25% of the world commercial seed market.
The much-talked about Monsanto-Syngenta merger is likely but not inevitable. Monsanto began 2016 with its third buyout offer to the European corporation in less than a year. Syngenta’s management announced it will not decide on Monsanto’s latest bid right away because it is considering other offers. In a conference in Switzerland in mid-January, company chairman Michael Demare said it is evaluating proposals from German companies BASF and Bayer, which are also world leaders in the agricultural biotech and pesticide sectors, and from ChemChina.
Although not very well known in North America and Europe, the Chinese state-owned ChemChina is one mammoth of a corporation. With $45.6 billion in annual revenues and some 140,000 employees, it ranks 265th in the Fortune 500 index.
“ChemChina became a pesticide powerhouse in 2011 when its subsidiary, China National Agrochemical Corporation, acquired Makhteshim Agan Industries (Israel), the world’s 7th largest pesticide manufacturer, and became ADAMA”, said the Canada-based ETC Group. “With revenues over $3 billion in 2013, ADAMA sells generic pesticide products in more than 120 countries… ADAMA’s largest market is Europe (37%), followed by Latin America (25%).” (Parentheses in original)
ChemChina’s interests go way beyond agrochemicals. Last year it acquired Italy’s Pirelli, one of the world’s leading tire manufacturers, for $7.9 billion. Its other major purchases include French firms Adisseo and Rhodia, Australia’s Qenos, Norwegian silicon maker Elkem, German machinery maker Krauss Maffee, and 12% of Swiss energy trader Mercuria.
ChemChina is headed by the flamboyant Ren Jianxin, a high-ranking Communist Youth League member who took the unusual step of going into business rather than politics. “Over three decades, Ren has led the restructuring of China’s chemicals industry, organizing more than 100 firms under the ChemChina banner into six main operating divisions, producing everything from basic chemicals to fertilizers and silicones”, said Reuters. Ren recently hired Bayer director Michael Koenig to run one of ChemChina’s subsidiaries, a move that raised eyebrows since state-owned companies very rarely ever hire foreigners to executive positions.
The company is also looking to expand its presence in the domestic market. A merger with Syngenta would turn ChemChina into the country’s top pesticide company. This is no small undertaking, given that China is the world’s third largest pesticide market, after the US and Brazil. If foreign agrochemical companies were to be interested in investing in China’s vast market they would find themselves squeezed into a minor corner by a gigantic Syngenta-ChemChina combination.
ChemChina’s ambitions are part of a larger story. Chinese food and agriculture companies are moving abroad and starting to compete toe to toe with their Western counterparts and even buying them out. In 2013, China’s Shuanghui corporation bought Smithfield, the leading US pork company, for $7.1 billion, the largest ever purchase of a US company by Chinese investors.
Another Chinese company to watch is COFCO, the country’s leading food processor, which acquired a controlling stake in the Netherlands’ agricultural commodity trader Nidera. The majority stake in Nidera would give COFCO greater control over pricing and better access to Latin America and Russia, important grain-growing regions, the Wall Street Journal reported in 2014.
So what happens if ChemChina beats Monsanto to the Syngenta finish line? The Missouri-based company, which has been hitting hard times in the recent months, may end up trampled and squashed, unable to compete with a Dow-Dupont and a Syngenta-ChemChina.
According to the ETC Group: “No matter which mergers/acquisitions ultimately materialize, there’s little doubt that the infamous Monsanto name will soon be history.”
