Saturday, August 2, 2014

FOR-PROFIT BOTTLING - CORPORATE EXTRACTION OF 75% OF COLORADO WATER - AMIDST NATIONAL DROUGHT

How Corporations Are Creating a Life-Threatening Water Shortage

By (about the author)    Related Topic(s):


Headlined to H1 8/1/14



plastic bottle on beach
(image by lennox_mcdough)

Reprinted from occupy.com
IImagine the swift and fierce government response if Al-Qaeda took a precious resource out of a delicate environment, sold it for profit and endangered 40 million people in the process. Now compare that example to the nonexistent government response to American energy companies, golf courses and corporations like Nestle taking 75 percent of the groundwater out of the Colorado River Basin at a time when the American West is facing a record drought.
Corporations will continue to abuse their constitutional protections as legal "persons" until fresh water has become fully privatized, or until corporate constitutional rights are eliminated with a constitutional amendment.
Depleting a Precious Resource
Nestle has two plants on the Colorado River Basin that take in water to bottle and sell under its Arrowhead and Pure Life brands. One is in Salida, Colorado, on the eastern edge of the Upper Basin; the other is in the San Gorgonio Pass, halfway between San Bernardino and Indio, Calif., on the western edge of the Lower Basin. According to annual reports filed up to 2009, Nestle bottles between 595 and 1,366 acre-feet of water per year -- enough to flood that many acres under a foot of water -- from the California source. The company takes 200 additional acre-feet per year from the Colorado source. This means altogether Nestle is draining the Colorado River Basin of anywhere from 250 million to 510 million gallons of water per year, according to the acre-feet-to-gallons conversion calculator.

The Colorado River Basin is an especially critical water resource, responsible for supplying municipal water to 40 million Americans and irrigating 5.5 million acres of land. As the US Bureau of Reclamation has documented, 22 federally-recognized tribes, seven national wildlife refuges, four national recreation areas, and 11 national parks depend on the basin. In a new report by NASA and the University of California at Irvine, researchers discovered that between December of 2004 and November of 2013, the basin lost 53 million acre-feet of water. 41 million acre-feet, or 75 percent of that loss, came from groundwater sources, like those pumped by Nestle. That's more than twice the amount of water contained in Lake Mead, America's largest freshwater reservoir. In the meantime, Nestle, with 29 water bottling facilities across North America, pocketed $4 billion in revenue from bottled water sales in 2012 alone.

But Nestle isn't alone in abusing the main water source of the Western United States. Expansive golf courses in desert areas, like those in Arizona and Southern California, require hundreds of thousands of gallons of water per day to maintain. According to the United States Golf Association (USGA), 2 million acres of American golf courses are irrigated, or 80 percent of the country's total golf course acreage. Between 2003 and 2005, the USGA estimated that 2,312,701 acre-feet of water was used to maintain golf courses, amounting to over 2 billion gallons of water per day. An NPR report from 2008 put that in perspective, comparing the average daily water usage of one golf course to the amount of water used by one American family over the course of 4 years.
An "Insurmountable" Water Crisis by 2040
Egregious abuses of limited freshwater supplies have led to panic from some and greed from others. If current drought conditions and water usage patterns persist, it's estimated that the world will face an "insurmountable" water crisis by 2040. Aarhaus University of Denmark, the Vermont Law School and the nonprofit CNA Corporation recently released a study showing that a global population increase compounded by an exponential increase in water consumption will inevitably lead to drastic drought conditions unless immediate action is taken. The study projected a 40 percent gap between water supply and demand by 2030 under current conditions.
According to the study, 41 percent of American freshwater consumption came from energy production alone. Energy sources like nuclear and coal power were responsible for the bulk of water consumption, though the process of hydraulic fracturing -- better known as fracking, where jets of water mixed with chemicals are blasted underground to break up shale formations that produce natural gas -- was also high on the list. A prime example is Texas, where the population is expected to skyrocket from 25 million to 55 million in the next 35 years. Texas currently draws 91 percent of its electricity from natural gas, nuclear and coal power. And in the summer of 2011, Texas experienced its worst drought in history.
Outdoing Texas, California is now facing its worst drought in 1,200 years. Latest numbers from the National Drought Mitigation Center show that 80 percent of California is in "extreme drought." A full 31 percent of California is experiencing "exceptional drought" conditions, including population centers like Los Angeles, Oakland, and San Francisco. Food prices have gone up by an average of 2.5 percent since last year, and are expected to increase by another 3.5 percent before year's end. No less than 85 percent of the lettuce Americans eat comes from drought-ravaged California. Fresh fruits and vegetable prices are projected to increase by 6 percent in the coming months as a result of the drought.
Constitutionally-Protected Corporate Greed
The research community isn't the only group of people paying attention to the writing on the wall. Corporate executives are quickly making moves to privatize water resources, declaring the resource to be the next oil. Peter Brabeck, chairman and former CEO of Nestle, has openly said that "access to water is not a public right." This is in spite of UN Resolution 64/292, which declares that water and sanitation are both basic human rights. The World Health Organization has said that one person needs 20 liters of water for "survival" levels of use, including bathing and laundry. As I wrote previously for Occupy.com, the France-based Suez company is using a New Jersey-based subsidiary to prepare a buyout of Detroit's water infrastructure, with a potential end goal of privatizing the Detroit River and the Great Lakes.
Researchers argue for greater regulation of water usage to prevent future global drought, though that becomes complicated when looking into how such regulations would be implemented and enforced. The US Bureau of Reclamation monitors surface water, but groundwater regulation is up to individual states. And in the Colorado River Basin, for example, California has no regulations on groundwater usage despite the Bay Area implementing strict new penalties for excessive use of water. Even if federal or state agencies wanted to intervene to stop corporate entities like golf courses, power companies or Nestle from using up precious groundwater resources, corporations and their profits are protected under the constitution, giving them the same rights as actual human beings.
Ever since the Supreme Court established that corporations are legally people in the Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad ruling of 1886, corporations have successfully overridden a slew of regulations citing the equal protection clause under the 14th Amendment. By proving that a certain regulation would unduly infringe on a corporation's ability to make a profit, well-heeled corporate entities have lawyered up to defy regulatory agencies for over a century. The Buckley v. Valeo ruling in 1976 further ensconced corporate personhood, and the Citizens United v. FEC ruling in January of 2010 established the precedent that because corporations have the same legal rights as a person, their money is considered free speech. So not only can corporations defy any new regulation on their future usage of precious water resources, but they can spend unlimited amounts of money in election cycles to elect politicians who will prioritize their right to make a profit over a citizen's right to have access to water.
As long as corporations are given the same constitutional protections as people, they'll always escape regulation and accountability for their actions. Simply "getting money out of politics" is not enough -- only a constitutional amendment that explicitly abolishes the concept of corporate personhood and separates money from free speech will guarantee that necessary actions can be taken to prevent a disastrous water shortage.
Carl Gibson, is a spokesman and organizer for US Uncut, a nonviolent, creative direct-action movement to stop budget cuts by getting corporations to pay their fair share of taxes. Contact Carl on the Commons. - 

Source:  http://www.opednews.com/articles/How-Corporations-Are-Creat-by-Carl-Gibson-Water_Water-Conservation-140801-85.html

GMOs REJECTED IN CHINA COSTING AMERICAN FARMERS BILLIONS

A corn purchaser writes on his account in northwest China in 2012. In November 2013, officials began rejecting imports of U.S. corn when they detected traces of a new gene not yet approved in China.When China Spurns GMO Corn Imports, American Farmers Lose Billions

A corn purchaser writes on his account in northwest China in 2012. In November 2013, officials began rejecting imports of U.S. corn when they detected traces of a new gene not yet approved in China.
Peng Zhaozhi/Xinhua/Landov
For a while there, China was the American farmer's best friend. The world's most populous nation had so many pigs and chickens to feed, it became one of the of U.S. corn and soybeans almost overnight.

China also developed a big appetite for another corn-derived animal feed called "dried distillers grains with solubles," or , a byproduct of ethanol production. China's appetites for the stuff drove up global grain prices and filled Midwestern pockets with cash.

This year, though, the lovely relationship has gone sour, all because of biotechnology.
A couple of years ago, American farmers began planting a of genetically engineered corn invented by the seed company . This GMO contains a new version of a gene that protects the corn plant from certain insects. Problem is, this new gene isn't yet approved in China, and Chinese officials didn't appreciate it when traces of the new, as-yet-unapproved GMOs started showing up in boatloads of American grain.

The crackdown began in November 2013. China began rejecting shiploads of corn when officials detected traces of the new gene. By February of this year, U.S. exports of corn to China had practically ceased.

At the time, some American grain exporters said that there was little to worry about. The Chinese move, they said, probably was intended to slow down imports temporarily in order to make sure that China's farmers got a decent price for their own corn harvest. As evidence, they pointed to the fact that China continued to accept imports of DDGS, which also contain traces of the unapproved gene. The U.S. sent $1.6 billion worth of DDGS to China last year.

Well, last week, China expanded the ban to DDGS, shocking many traders. The price of DDGS plunged.

According to the , the Chinese ban on corn and corn products may end up costing American farmers, ethanol producers and traders a total of about $3 billion.

, director of Economics for the NGFA, who came up with that estimate, says the ban actually is hurting the Chinese, too. "They replaced [the U.S. corn] with more expensive grains," he says, such as barley from Australia. But one group of American farmers is benefiting: China is importing lots more .

In an interesting twist, American farm groups seem unsure whom to blame. Some are angry at China. Others point their finger at Syngenta.

Empty shelves where eggs should be at a Whole Foods Market in Washington, D.C. The store blames increased demand for organic eggs.A few days ago, the wrote a to Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack, urging his "immediate, direct, and personal intervention" with Chinese officials "to halt this current regulatory sabotage of the DDGS trade with China."

The NGFA and the , on the other hand, have on Syngenta to stop selling the offending corn varieties until those varieties can be sold in major export markets.

"They're being a bad actor here," says Max Fisher of NGFA, referring to Syngenta. "They're making $40 million" selling the new corn varieties, "but it's costing U.S. farmers $1 billion."

Syngenta, for its part, any blame for the debacle. "We want to get technology into the hands of farmers as soon as possible," said the company's CEO, David Morgan, in a released on Syngenta's website. "We can't expect growers to wait indefinitely for access to technologies, based on what foreign governments decide to do." According to Morgan, China has failed to make a timely decision on the new gene, which goes by the name MIR 162.
Even if China approved MIR 162, however, the ban might remain. That's because Syngenta began selling yet another new new type of GMO corn this year, which also is not yet approved in China.

Syngenta has asked farmers to take that corn to specific grain processors, who will keep it from getting into export shipments. But Fisher thinks the new gene is likely to show up in exports. "Farmers are going to be farmers," he says, and sell their grain through the usual channels.
Source:
  http://www.npr.org/blogs/thesalt/2014/07/31/336833095/when-china-spurns-gmo-corn-imports-american-farmers-lose-billions

Friday, August 1, 2014

STUDY SHOWS: ORGANIC CROPS HAVE 18-69% MORE ANTIOXIDANTS THAN CONVENTIONAL AND GMOs

Organic Consumers AssociationNew Analysis Concludes Organic Food Really Is Healthier    


July 29, 2014

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thesalt/2014/07/11/330760923/are-organic-vegetables-more-nutritious-after-all


This is a Flash-based audio and may not be playable on mobile devices.



By Dr. Mercola

Are organic foods healthier, and therefore worth the extra expense? The scientific debate over this issue has raged on for many years now. I believe the answer is clear-cut, at least if you believe that toxic chemicals have the capacity to harm your health...
Two years ago, meta-analysis by Stanford University1 received widespread media coverage, and with few exceptions, conventional media outlets used it to cast doubt on the value of an organic diet.
This despite the fact that the analysis—which looked at 240 studies comparing organically and conventionally grown food—found that organic foods are less contaminated with agricultural chemicals. In an effort to further clarify the 2012 findings, a group of European scientists evaluated an even greater number of studies, 343 in all, published over the last several decades.

Organic Foods Have Higher Levels of Important Antioxidants


Just like the Stanford study, the new analysis2, 3, 4, 5, 6 also found that while conventional and organic vegetables oftentimes offer similar levels of many nutrients, organic foods have fewer pesticide residues. They also have on average 48 percent lower levels of cadmium,7 a toxic metal and a known carcinogen—a clear bonus, if you ask me.
One key nutritional difference between conventional and organics however, is their antioxidant content. According to the featured findings, organic fruits and vegetables can contain anywhere from 18-69 percent more antioxidants than conventionally-grown varieties. According to the authors:

“Many of these compounds have previously been linked to a reduced risk of chronic diseases, including cardiovascular disease and neurodegenerative diseases and certain cancers, in dietary intervention and epidemiological studies.
Additionally, the frequency of occurrence of pesticide residues was found to be four times higher in conventional crops... Significant differences were also detected for some other (e.g. minerals and vitamins) compounds.” [Emphasis mine]
Antioxidants are a very important part of optimal health, as they can control how fast you age by fighting free radicals. So the fact that organic foods contain far higher levels of them vouches for the stance that organic foods are healthier in terms of nutrition, in addition to being lower in pesticides.
Co-author Charles Benbrook notes8 that one reason you’re advised to eat more fruits and vegetables is in fact to get more antioxidants into your diet. “And if organic produce provides more of them, we think that's a big deal,” he says. I couldn’t agree more.
There are also a number of other studies that support the claim that organically grown produce contain higher levels of nutrients in general. For example, in 2010 PLOS ONE published a study9 that was partially funded by the USDA, which found that organic strawberries were more nutrient-rich than non-organic strawberries.

Nutrient Content in Food Has Dramatically Declined


Ironically, LA Times10 noted that It's not entirely clear to scientists whether the human body can absorb the extra antioxidants in organic foods and put them to use.” To me, this line of reasoning shows a remarkable depth of ignorance, if not outright deception.
The nutrient content of foods has dramatically declined across the board since the introduction of mechanized farming in 1925. For example, as explained by Dr. August Dunning, chief science officer and co-owner of Eco Organics, in order to receive the same amount of iron you used to get from one apple in 1950, by 1998 you had to eat 26 apples!
Were people prior to the 1950s eating foods that were “unnecessarily” nutrient-dense? Was most of their diet superfluous, in terms of the amount of nutrients a body can get by on?
The idea that your body wouldn’t put the extra nutrients to good use is just plain silly! You did not suddenly develop a new set of genetic instructions over the past 60+ years that allow your body to thrive on toxins and “not know what to do” with antioxidants! So please, do not fall for that kind of nonsense.
One of the primary reasons food doesn’t taste as good as it used to is also related to the deterioration of mineral content. The minerals actually form the compounds that give the fruit or vegetable its flavor. All of these issues go back to the health of the soil in which the food is grown.11
Healthy soils contain a huge diversity of microorganisms, and it is these organisms that are responsible for the plant’s nutrient uptake, health, and the stability of the entire ecosystem. The wide-scale adoption of industrial agriculture practices has decimated soil microbes responsible for transferring these minerals to the plants.
In 2009, the American Association for the Advancement of Science featured a presentation on soil health and its impact on food quality,12, 13 concluding that healthy soil indeed leads to higher levels of nutrients in crops.
Agricultural chemicals destroy the health of the soil by killing off its microbial inhabitants, which is one of the primary problems with modern farming, and the reason why the nutritional quality of conventionally-grown foods is deteriorating. As reported by Scientific American14 back in 2011:

“A landmark study on the topic by Donald Davis and his team of researchers from the University of Texas (UT) at Austin’s Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry was published in December 2004 in the Journal of the American College of Nutrition.
They studied U.S. Department of Agriculture nutritional data from both 1950 and 1999 for 43 different vegetables and fruits, finding ‘reliable declines’ in the amount of protein, calcium, phosphorus, iron, riboflavin (vitamin B2) and vitamin C over the past half century.
Davis and his colleagues chalk up this declining nutritional content to the preponderance of agricultural practices designed to improve traits (size, growth rate, pest resistance) other than nutrition... The Organic Consumers Association cites several other studies with similar findings: A Kushi Institute analysis of nutrient data from 1975 to 1997 found that average calcium levels in 12 fresh vegetables dropped 27 percent; iron levels 37 percent; vitamin A levels 21 percent, and vitamin C levels 30 percent.”

Contemporary Industrial Agriculture Decimates Soil Microbes


The photographic adventure of NPR commentator and science writer Craig Childs offers a clear view of the death and destruction brought on by modern agriculture—genetic engineering-based monoculture in particular. Childs decided to replicate a photo project by David Liittschwager, a portrait photographer who spent years traveling the world dropping one-cubic-foot metal frames into gardens, streams, parks, forests, and oceans, photographing anything and everything that entered the frame. Around the world, Liittschwager's camera captured thousands of plants, animals, and insects within the cubes, with entirely different “worlds” of plants and animals living as little as a few feet away from each other.
However, when Childs set up his camera among the genetically engineered corn stalks on a 600-acre farm in Iowa, he found NO signs of life with the exception of an isolated spider, a single red mite, and a couple grasshoppers...
The fact of the matter is that the "faster, bigger, cheaper" approach to food is slowly draining dry our planet's resources and compromising your health. The earth's soil is depleting at more than 13 percent the rate it can be replaced. We have already lost 75 percent of the world's crop varieties over the last century. Over the past 10 years, we've had 100 million tons of herbicides dumped onto our crops, polluting our soil and streams. And genetically engineered (GE) crops are now speeding up the destructive process by completely altering the composition of soil bacteria in the fields where such crops are grown.

Pesticide Exposure May Be Greater Than Reported, Thanks to GMOs


It’s worth noting that certain types of pesticides are not even counted when researchers assess pesticide contamination on food. The soil bacteria Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt), produces Bt toxin—a pesticide that breaks open the stomach of certain insects and kills them. This pesticide is actually permitted in organic farming, where it’s applied topically. It’s known to photodegrade over time, making it fairly harmless by the time the food reaches your plate.
However, genetically engineered “Bt” crops, such as Bt corn, are equipped with a gene from the Bt soil bacteria. These plants actually produce the Bt toxin internally, in every cell of the plant, from root to tip. This plant-produced version of the poison is thousands of times more concentrated than the topical spray. It cannot be washed off, and it does not photodegrade. This internal Bt toxin is not counted in pesticide counts, yet it’s present in every single kernel!

The Health Hazards of These Pesticide-Producing Plants


Monsanto and the EPA consistently claimed that the genetically engineered Bt corn would only harm insects. The Bt toxin produced inside the plant would be completely destroyed in the human digestive system and would not have any impact at all on consumers, they claimed. These claims have since turned out to be false. In 2011, doctors at Sherbrooke University Hospital in Quebec found Bt-toxin in the blood of:15

  • 93 percent of pregnant women tested
  • 80 percent of umbilical blood in their babies
  • 67 percent of non-pregnant women
The study authors speculated that the Bt toxin was likely ingested via the normal diet of the Canadian middle class—which makes sense when you consider that genetically engineered (GE) corn is present in the vast majority of all processed foods and drinks in the form of high fructose corn syrup, corn oil, and other corn products. They also suggested that the toxin may have come from eating meat from animals fed Bt corn, which most livestock raised in confined animal feeding operations (CAFOs) are. Other research16 has revealed that the Bt toxin produced in GE plants is toxic to humans and mammals, and triggers immune system responses, including:

  • Elevated IgE and IgG antibodies, which are typically associated with allergies and infections
  • An increase in cytokines, which are associated with allergic and inflammatory responses. The specific cytokines (interleukins) that were found to be elevated are also higher in humans who suffer from a wide range of disorders, from arthritis and inflammatory bowel disease to MS and cancer
  • Elevated T cells (gamma delta), which are increased in people with asthma, and in children with food allergies, juvenile arthritis, and connective tissue diseases

Why Spraying Antibiotics on Fields Is a BAD Idea


As suggested earlier, some pesticides have antibiotic properties, and very effectively and aggressively kill off the microorganisms in the soil. Glyphosate is a perfect example, and is one of the primary pesticides used on other types of GE crops, particularly those known as “Roundup Ready.” These crops are engineered to withstand otherwise lethal doses of the chemical. The idea is that by being “immune” to the chemical, only weeds will be killed off, allowing farmers to liberally spray their fields.  
But when farmers spray glyphosate on their fields, not only are they destroying the fertility of the soil, they’re also promoting chemical resistance in the field AND antibiotic resistance in the human food chain... Indeed, weeds have developed resistance to glyphosate, making the weed problem an ever-worsening one. But that’s not all. Livestock raised in confined animal feeding operations (CAFOs) are routinely fed GE feed—typically GE corn and soy—which destroys the animal’s gut bacteria and promotes disease.
And, feces from animals raised in CAFOs are used as fertilizer on crop fields, which scientists now admit is yet another way antibiotic-resistant disease appears to be promulgated! Modern agriculture is truly stuck in a vicious circle where the “garbage in-garbage out” motto rules supreme...
 SOURCE:  http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2014/07/29/organic-food-healthier.aspx

2016 ENDS GMOs AND BEE KILLING NEONICS IN PUBLIC PARKS

The U.S. Bans GMOs, Bee-Killing Pesticides in All Wildlife Refuges

The U.S. Bans GMOs, Bee-Killing Pesticides in All Wildlife RefugesThe Fish and Wildlife Service will phase out genetically engineered crops and neonicotinoids by 2016.

 
July 31, 2014
Todd Woody is TakePart's senior editor for environment and wildlife.
The U.S. government is creating a safe place for bees on national wildlife refuges by phasing out the use of genetically modified crops and an agricultural pesticide implicated in the mass die-off of pollinators.

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s National Wildlife Refuge System manages 150 million acres across the country. By January 2016, the agency will ban the use of neonicotinoids, widely used nerve poisons that a growing number of scientific studies have shown are harmful to bees, birds, mammals, and fish. Neonicotinoids, also called neonics, can be sprayed on crops, but most often the seeds are coated with the pesticide so that the poison spreads throughout every part of the plant as it grows, including the pollen and nectar that pollinators like bees and butterflies eat.

“We have determined that prophylactic use, such as a seed treatment, of the neonicotinoid pesticides that can distribute systemically in a plant and can affect a broad spectrum of non-target species is not consistent with Service policy,” James Kurth, chief of the National Wildlife Refuge System, wrote in a July 17 memo.

The move follows a regional wildlife chief’s decision on July 9 to ban neonics in Washington, Oregon, Idaho, Hawaii, and the Pacific Islands by 2016.

The nationwide ban, however, goes further as it also prohibits the use of genetically modified seeds to grow crops to feed wildlife.
 

A FWS spokesperson declined to comment on why the agency was banning genetically modified organisms in wildlife refuges.

But in his memo, Kurth cited existing agency policy. “We do not use genetically modified organisms in refuge management unless we determine their use is essential to accomplishing refuge purpose(s),” he wrote. “We have demonstrated our ability to successfully accomplish refuge purposes over the past two years without using genetically modified crops, therefore it is no longer to say their use is essential to meet wildlife management objectives.”
GMOs have not been linked directly to the bee die-off. But the dominance of GMO crops has led to the widespread use of pesticides like neonicotinoids and industrial farming practices that biologists believe are harming other pollinators, such as the monarch butterfly.
Neonicotinoids account for 40 percent of the global pesticide market and are used to treat most corn and soybean crops in the U.S.

“We are gratified that the Fish and Wildlife Service has finally concluded that industrial agriculture, with GE crops and powerful pesticides, is both bad for wildlife and inappropriate on refuge lands,” Jeff Ruch, executive director of Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility, said in a statement.

Source:  http://www.takepart.com/article/2014/07/31/us-bans-gmos-bee-killing-pesticides-national-wildlife-refuges

HERE'S WHAT A FEW MOMS ARE DOING - ON A GMO CONFERENCE TRIP TO CHINA

Moms Across America

Moms Across America

 

China_2014_(55).jpg
A Report on the Food Safety and Sustainable Agriculture 2014

DSC04792.JPG
Beijing, China, by Zen Honeycutt

Nirvana Resort, Beijing,China

Food Safety and Sustainable Agriculture Forum Speakers and Organizers

China buys 50% of the GMOs in the world. They are also the world’s largest producers of glyphosate, which GMOs are engineered to withstand. 

China has been told by chemical companies that “American mothers have been feeding their children GMO food for nearly 20 years with no ill health effects.”

However, both GMOs and glyphosate have been linked to numerous, horrendous birth defects and skyrocketing illness.

July 25-26th 30 international experts gathered in Beijing, China, to an audience of 400 Chinese people interested in the future of China’s food safety and sustainable agriculture. I was deeply honored to attend and speak for many reasons.

1. I am not a farmer or scientist. To be included to speak before such an influential country with such esteemed scientists and farmers too numerous to list in one sentence, was incredible.  This was made possible not only by the sponsor of the event, but by the supporters of MAA, you Moms and leaders who hosted events, posted, emailed and called on support of our cause, making Moms Across America a coalition that the world has quickly recognized as Unstoppable! THANK YOU!

2. As a half Chinese and half French American mother, I am very proud to be a part of an event coordinate by the country of my mother’s culture and grandfather’s homeland. China's influence in this cause is tremendous.

3. Being able to express the testimonials of the mothers I represent brings me to tears if I think about it. Your struggles and triumphs matter. Our stories need to be heard for the health and survival of the human race. Being able to share them to a captive audience with the power to do something about it, restores my faith in humanity. Thank you for making this possible.

Bob Streit said at the conference in China "There are two groups the chemical companies and Monsanto do not want to wake up, Mothers, and China. And here we are."

We can do this. We must do this, but most importantly the fact that we choose to do this, means that we are a species deserving of this precious earth. The fact that hundreds of courageous humans gathered to share, learn, plan actions and make a difference together, and that thousands, maybe millions more are working together, makes me proud to raise my sons on this planet .

Many times I am not proud. The information I learned and shared had me confused and ashamed of the actions of human beings. It is baffling that:

Chemical companies that make the poison pesticides which are sprayed on GMO food and as a drying agent on non GMO foods ( except organic) are claiming that we must have GMOs to “feed the hungry” yet they completely ignore that we make more food than we need and waste 40% of the food we do eat.  Summarized from  Hans Herren, Switzerland

Nicholas DeFarge of France, Seralini’s Team reported that the only study on Roundup (not just glyphosate)  in the world showed that the adjuvents ( other chemicals) in Roundup make glyphosate 1000 x MORE toxic, resulting in 0.1ppb of glyphosate in the water fed to rats causing sex hormone changes and liver damage in rats.

0.1ppb is half of what is allowed in drinking water in EU and 7 thousand times lower than what is allowed in the USA. The frightening thing is we cannot detect lower than 0.5ppb in our drinking water.

Dr. Medardo Avila- Vazquez from Argentina shared that birth defects have tripled in just 9 years, from 1997-2008 in GMO/Glyphosate farming communities.  Currently 21-23% of women have miscarriages, whereas in non farming areas, such as cities, only 3% have miscarriages. Of the women who have miscarriages 9 out of 11 show a positive link to pesticides.  33% of deaths are due to cancer with increased rates in mothers and children by fields. There has been a 258% increase of stomach and pancreatic cancer since GMOs/Glyphosate has been sprayed on their local farms.

Although there has been a 858% increase of toxic agro chemicals, there has been only a 36% increase in yield. This increase in yield does not include the loss of jobs and sustainability however, from chemical companies buying land from under small family farmers and forcibly evicting them off the land.

And yet it is inspiring that:

DSC04815.JPG
Elena Sharoykina, Russia shared that Russia has BANNED GMOs. It is unlawful to even print propaganda about GMOS. Putin has made it clear that Russia “will protect it’s citizens from GMOs.”

Elena on the right and Nadja
(translator) on left from Russia

Henry Rowlands UK, shared the expansive plans the Global GMO Free Coalition has to connect and support organizations around the world. We ARE all working together and we ARE unstoppable!

China_2014_(78).jpgGottfried Glockner, from Germany, a cow farmer stood his ground against Syngenta lawyers and maintained his integrity by not selling out to their bribes. He remained imprisoned for 18 months after he reported that his cows were harmed and died from BT Toxin GMO corn. He has since won his freedom and his farm back.

Gottfried was imprisoned for 18 months and continues to fight.

Maewan Ho from the UK explained that  the old science assumed that one could alter DNA  (like a replacing Lego) and have only linear changes, but  now we know that DNA and RNA communicates with cells, protein and genes in the body in a circular, holistic manner. Like living things on the earth, what is happening in our body affects everything around it.  This new perspective gives us new understanding of why GMOs and glyphosate have such an impact on various functions of the body and restores our faith in scientists who are working for the best of life on earth.

Below are links to video interviews of just some of the extraordinary experts who spoke at the historic event:

Nicholas DeFarge, Seralini’s Team on Roundup/Glyphosate’s Harm

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fBQNNDrT-zM

Vandana Shiva on GMOs and Glyphosate and her call to action

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_PUrn6Jq_0c

Women from around the World!: not shown Stephanie Seneff and Monika Krueger

China_2014_(169).jpgBob Streit, Farmer and Crop Specialist on the Impact of Glyphosate on Food Crops https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gGv6iuSnQoI


Howard Vlieger
, Farmer and Biological Crop Nutrition Advisor  on the Motivation Behind GMOs                   https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zGztS3ZS2yE


Art Dunham
, Veteranarian on Glyphosate Harm to Animals
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VZoA0sgzvbw

MaeWen Ho, PhD. Scientist, UK on the Old Science of GMOs
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zy0hahUO8tY

Peter Saunders, UK on Access to GMO  Information 
 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F8q2d3CfuWY

Here is the amazing video from Vandana Shiva from the farmers in India made specifically for this conference:



The other attendees, who also shared astounding information, I just did not get the time to interview between our talks and events, were:

Dr. Don Huber USA, Judy Carman Aistralia, Monika Kruger Germany,  Dr. Stephanie Seneff USA,  Dr Irna Ermakova Russia, Dr. Michael Antoniou UK,  Lomas de Zomara Argentina,  Claire Bleakley New Zealand, Brenden Hoare New Zealand,  TungjYemr Wu Taiwan, Ana Brocolli Argentina, Roberto Ungas Argentina, Fan Xiaohong China, Jin Wei China, Na Zhongyuan China, Jeffrey Smith USA, Eva Sirinathsigh UK, Zhou Zewei China, all organized by Dr. Gu and Cheni Wan and their amazing team.

See the summary from the conference organizers here
http://www.momsacrossamerica.com/r?u=http%3A%2F%2Fd3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net%2Fyesmaam%2Fmailings%2F233%2Fattachments%2Foriginal%2F2014-07-30_Food_Safety_and_Sustable_Agriculture_Forum_2014_Beijing.pdf%3F1406842129&utm_campaign=gmo_conf_china&n=11&e=bcc20300f5aee50dc95f19470b1c89cd49005a1c&utm_source=yesmaam&utm_medium=email


As I left the conference, I felt a deep sadness to part from what I could only describe as an immediate sense of family. Yet I was filled with inspiration, joy and confidence for the future we are all creating.

I am completely confident that our efforts for health and freedom will prevail, that your efforts to share with your community about GMOs and Glyphosate (and all toxins) is exactly what we need to be doing and is exactly what will have us be successful. Moms are the voice of our communities because a mom’s motivation comes only for what is best for her family.

I ask you not only to continue, but to step it up. Ask yourself, what else could I do? What is something NEW that I can do to share about GMOs/Gyphosate and Organic food today?
Join us and host an event on www.momsacrossamerica.com

Your support supports a world of health and freedom.
Thank you!
With Love and Gratitude,

Zen Honeycutt and the MAAM Team