Thursday, October 29, 2015

GMO SUGAR BEET CORPS PAYS MOMS TO PUSH "SUGAR IS GOOD" CAMPAIGN

Thu Oct 29, 2015 | 1:00 AM EDT

INSIGHT-GMO backlash threatens beet farmers as foodmakers swap sugars

By Chris Prentice
NEW YORK Oct 29 (Reuters) - America's sugar beet growers are under siege as U.S. food companies increasingly shun genetically modified (GMO) crops.
In the past seven years, the farmers - many in Minnesota, North Dakota, Michigan, and Idaho - have all switched to GMO seeds created by Monsanto Co and sold by others as they seek to increase yields and cut costs. Genetically Modified Organisms include plants that have had been created through gene splicing - the introduction of DNA from a different species to make a new one.
Now, as public sentiment moves against GMO crops and imports of cane sugar rise, sugar beet growers have seen their share of the U.S. sugar market slip to the smallest on record. Critics believe GMO crops contribute to the industrialization of farming and question promises of safety.
Beets' share of all U.S. sugar deliveries - which represent total demand to major users and customers - fell to less than 41 percent of the U.S. total of 11.8 million tons (10.7 million tonnes) in the last fiscal year, a record low, down from 47 percent of 10.4 million tons in the 2008 crop year, the year the biotech seeds were introduced on a commercial scale, according to U.S. government data dating from 1992.
Beets will account for almost 60 percent of this year's 8.8 million tons of sugar production in the United States. Any difference between what's been produced and what's been sold is generally inventoried and/or sold the following year. Though it's not clear that the erosion in demand comes from reaction against GMO food, industry sources said the trend is beginning to pressure the beet industry.
CONSUMER BACKLASH
Food manufacturers are taking seriously the backlash from consumers, including Millennials, the generation of people now in their 20s and 30s, who are perceived to care more about the ingredients on their plates.
Companies including Hershey Co, Chipotle Mexican Grill Inc, Unilever Plc subsidiary Ben & Jerry's Homemade Inc and General Mills Inc have pledged to ditch GMO ingredients in some products, bowing to customer pressure.
"Millennials care about the ingredients that are in our products," said Eric Boyle, director of responsible sourcing at Hershey. "Simple ingredients are a long-term trend. This is where things are going."
Hershey will stop using beet sugar in its Kisses and Milk Chocolate bars, two of its best-known products, by the end of the year.
Vermont has passed a law, due to come into effect next year, which requires food with GMO ingredients to be so labeled. It's the first such law in the nation and a move that some industry experts think could drive consumers toward organic and other non-GMO foods.
MARKET PROTECTION
The U.S. protects the domestic sugar market through a network of import quota and marketing allotments, and guarantees U.S. growers a premium that's now about 4 cents a pound above global prices, which have been depressed due to oversupply.
Refined cane sugar typically trades at a slight premium over refined beet sugar. Raw sugar costs about 25 cents a pound in the United States.
It's easy to see why beet farmers made the switch to biotech. Within two years of the seed's launch in 2008, they were used in almost every U.S. beet farm, boosting yields to record highs and slashing herbicide costs. For most beet farmers, returning to conventional seeds is inconceivable.
ADVERTISEMENT
"If we had to go back to conventional seeds, our cooperative couldn't survive," said Rebecca Larson, an agronomist with Western Sugar Cooperative in Denver.
Sugar from beets and sugar from cane look and taste the same. Proponents of GMO sugar say that the product is safe and identical to its non-GMO competition. Even so, consumers are turning to organic and less processed foods, said Billy Roberts, a senior food and drink analyst at Mintel.
"People are interested in avoiding Frankenfood and foods they don't understand," Roberts said.
LOBBYING EFFORTS
For beet farmers, the situation has gotten so bad that they are boosting their lobbying efforts in Washington and launching their first major offensive to combat growing public opposition through a social media campaign.
Western Sugar, one of eight sugarbeet co-operatives in the United States, is already seeing a dent in sales as consumers turn away from GMO.
"We are seeing an impact," said Larson. "A lot of our customers are decreasing their orders because they want non-GMO sugar. It feels like it's more and more by the day." She declined to give specific details on volumes of sales lost or on customers that have moved away from their sugar.
As the debate over GMO foods drives customers away from beet sugar, it's also exposed a schism with the farmers who grow sugar cane in Florida, Louisiana, Hawaii, and Texas.
Cane growers have become the main beneficiaries of the shift away from beet sugar and many are embracing the trend. There are no genetically-modified cane seeds.
ASR Group, the world's largest vertically-integrated cane sugar refiner, owned by the politically connected Fanjul family of Florida, labels products such as household brand Domino Sugar as GMO-free through the Non-GMO Project, an organization that certifies and audits food.
AmCane Sugar Refining LLC and Cumberland Packing Corp, whose packets of "Sugar In The Raw" are used in thousands of Starbucks Corp's stores across America, have also signed up for the non-GMO seal.
Cane and beet farm groups declined to discuss the polarizing effect the GMO issue has on their industry, one of the nation's most powerful farm lobby groups in Washington.
Luther Markwart, head of the American Sugarbeet Growers Association that represents country's 10,000 beet farmers, acknowledged that on this issue, unlike most, sugar beet farmers are going it alone.
"This is simply a beet issue," he said.
The split is a contrast from the industry's usual cohesive stance on issues that affect farmers from policy to consumer tastes - two years ago, it fought off efforts to dismantle the country's generous farm subsidies and the industry has waged a successful decades-long campaign against a long-time foe, high-fructose corn syrup.
GRASSROOTS CAMPAIGN
Markwart said the beet industry ignored the push against genetically-engineered foods for too long.
"It was never something that seemed like you needed to spend a lot of time on," he said.
That's no longer the case. He has enlisted 18 women, largely farmers and wives of farmers and including Larson, to defend sugar on Twitter and Facebook and persuade mothers that GMO seeds are safe. He said that because the message is being delivered by women, that consumers will trust it.
Last month, the group flew to Monsanto's St. Louis headquarters to learn about the seed technology and sharpen their social media skills, Markwart said.
The industry is throwing more cash at the issue too. This year, the U.S. Beet Sugar Association, a sister organization which represents sugar-beet processors, has started lobbying on biotechnology for the first time.
It spent almost $1 million in the first half of the year on issues including GMO labeling, according to U.S. Senate records reviewed by Reuters.
GMO critics "are trying to drive a wedge between the farmers and the consumers," said Laura Rutherford, a North Dakota-based farmer and the first recruit to the social media campaign. "We need to start pushing back."
(Reporting by Chris Prentice. Editing by Josephine Mason and John Pickering)
Source:  http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSL1N12C0Z520151029?rpc=401&

PESTICIDE STUDY FINDINGS IMPEDED BY USDA - SCIENTIST SUSPENDED

Suspended USDA scientist says agency tried to block his research into harmful effects of pesticides


Jonathan Lundgren says his superiors began to impede his research and resultant publications more than a year ago
 
Here’s more on the story we reported yesterday about the USDA scientist who was suspended after complaining the agency was trying to censor and block his research on the harmful effects of pesticides.

As the article below points out, Lundgren has published work suggesting that (GM) soybean seeds pretreated with neonicotinoid pesticide produce no yield benefit to farmers, who pay extra for the seeds.

Suspended USDA researcher alleges agency tried to block his research into harmful effects of pesticides on bees, butterflies

By Steve Volk
Washington Post, October 28 2015
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/federal-eye/wp/2015/10/28/suspended-usda-researcher-alleges-agency-tried-to-block-his-research-into-harmful-effects-of-pesticides-on-bees-butterflies/

A prominent Agriculture Department scientist is alleging that he was suspended after complaining that the agency was blocking his research into the harmful effects of pesticides on pollinators, such as bees and butterflies.

In a whistleblower complaint filed Wednesday, Jonathan Lund­gren, an entomologist and 11-year veteran of the USDA’s Agricultural Research Service, says his supervisors retaliated against him by suspending him initially for 30 days before reducing it to 14 days.

The complaint, filed with the federal Merit Systems Protection Board, says his superiors began to “impede or deter his research and resultant publications” more than a year ago. Lundgren has also previously alleged that the agency tried to prevent him from speaking about his findings for political reasons and interfered with his ability to review the research of other scientists.

The trouble began after he published research and gave interviews about the effect that certain common pesticides were having on pollinators, according to a statement by Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER), which filed the complaint on his behalf. The whistleblower complaint says that Lundgren’s “work showed the adverse effects of certain widely used pesticides, findings which have drawn national attention as well as the ire of the agricultural industry.”

Over the past decade, there have been dramatic declines in the population of honeybees, which play an essential role in pollinating about one-third of the food Americans eat.

Christopher Bentley, a spokesman for the Agricultural Research Service, declined to discuss the specifics of Lundgren’s case but said the agency is committed to maintaining scientific integrity.

“We take the integrity of our scientists seriously, and we recognize how critical that is to maintaining widespread confidence in our research among the scientific community, policymakers and the general public,” Bentley said in a statement.

In suspending Lundgren, PEER says USDA cited two infractions: He provided some of his research to a scientific journal without proper approval, and he violated official travel policies in connection with lectures he delivered in Philadelphia and Washington.

In his complaint and related documents released by PEER, Lundgren says the submission of the journal article — which concerned the non-target effects of clothianidin, a widely used nicotine-based pesticide, on monarch butterflies — was not inappropriate. He calls the travel violations an inadvertent paperwork error.

Lundgren has published work suggesting that soybean seeds pretreated with neonicotinoid pesticide produce no yield benefit to farmers, who pay extra for the seeds. He wrote a paper on the potential hazards of “gene silencing” pesticides, which he said require further study to determine whether they could harm other organisms. He also peer-reviewed a report published by the Center for Food Safety called “Heavy Costs,” which was critical of neonicotinoid pesticides for providing little to no benefit to farmers and adversely affecting bees.

Lundgren, a 2011 recipient of the Presidential Early Career Awards for Scientists and Engineers, has given interviews on aspects of his research, including a widely distributed interview with Minnesota Public Radio, and spoke before the National Academy of Sciences. According to the complaint, his suspension was based in part on the paperwork associated with that trip.

“Having research published in prestigious journals and being invited to present before the National Academy of Sciences should be sources of official pride, not punishment,” PEER staff counsel Laura Dumais said. “Politics inside USDA have made entomology into a most dangerous discipline.”

The whistleblower filing culminates months of speculation about Lundgren in the small community of commercial beekeepers and researchers studying their decline. Earlier this year, Lundgren’s dispute with his superiors became evident in a scientific journal.

A paper published in Environmental Science & Policy, with the sole listed author Scott W. Fausti, includes the following footnote: “I would like to acknowledge Dr. Jonathan G. Lundgren’s contribution to this manuscript. Dr. Lund­gren is an entomologist employed by the USDA Agricultural Research Service (ARS). However, the ARS has required Dr. Lund­gren to remove his name as joint first author from this article. I believe this action raises a serious question concerning policy neutrality toward scientific inquiry.”

That paper suggests that the combination of federal mandates for corn ethanol production and the advent of genetically modified corn crops have produced a host of unintended adverse consequences, including rising environmental pollution and greenhouse gas emissions, stronger pest resistance and inflated corn prices.

Increasing pest resistance is of particular concern for beekeepers, whose bee populations have been declining at rates deemed “unsustainable” by Darren Cox, president of the American Honey Producers Association. Increased resistance creates a need for stronger pesticides, bringing potential harm to bees. “Beekeepers have been heavily involved in ensuring that all scientists are free to conduct unfettered research,” Cox says.

In the statement, ARS spokesman Bentley said: “As one of the world’s leading promoters of agriculture and natural resources science and research, USDA has implemented a strong scientific integrity policy to promote a culture of excellence and transparency. That includes procedures for staff to report any perceived interference with their work, seek resolution and receive protection from recourse for doing so.”

But Jeff Ruch, PEER’s executive director, said Lundgren’s whistleblower complaint adds to the debate about scientific freedom. He said USDA is essentially saying: “‘You can do whatever science you want, as long as it has no real-world applications.’ The rules allow for scientists to be silenced based on the content of their science.”

Volk is a freelance writer.
__________________________________________________________
Website: http://www.gmwatch.org
Profiles: http://www.powerbase.info/index.php/GM_Watch:_Portal
Twitter: http://twitter.com/GMWatch
Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/pages/GMWatch/276951472985?ref=nf

Tuesday, October 27, 2015

CA CDFA TO TEST ORGANIC PRODUCE FOR GMO CONTAMINATION


GMO Testing Pilot Project to Ensure Compliance with National Organic Program
Published October 26, 2015

It has been said that “California is the capital of organic.” The strength of that statement is a tribute to our state’s and our industry’s ability and willingness to lead, create and innovate.

California’s organic growers have put in the work, the time, and the investment to farm according to a set of practices that sets them and their crops apart. And the California Department of Food and Agriculture (CDFA) and its State Organic Program (SOP) have worked alongside those growers since 2003 to make sure consumers can trust the integrity of organic agriculture and the farmers who grow it.
We see these efforts reflected in consumer preferences, at the farmers’ markets and the supermarkets, and on the labels of a growing number of products that are certified organic. For our growers, there is a certain amount of pride involved in this accomplishment, and achieving it has not come quickly or easily. It has been the result of substantial investment, careful planning and a healthy helping of persistence.
The community of organic growers works daily with the California Department of Food and Agriculture (CDFA) and its State Organic Program (SOP) to ensure the integrity of this vibrant, still-developing segment of our agricultural industry. The SOP staff and the state’s network of county agricultural commissioners are responsible for verifying the organic certification of vendors at certified farmers markets, sampling organic produce for pesticide residue testing, and other activities that support organic growers and their expanding market. The SOP also applies regulatory sanctions and provides due process to ensure consistent application of the law.
These same farmers have approached CDFA to develop a pilot project to conduct “blind” sampling to detect genetically modified organisms (GMO) in organic products. Growers, through their representatives on the California Organic Products Advisory Committee (COPAC), have been working with our SOP in recent months to design and implement this project. We are putting the finishing touches on contracts, and we expect to begin sampling soon for a period of one year.
“The members of our advisory committee believe this is an important step for organic farming in California,” said Melody Meyer, a COPAC member who serves as vice president of Policy and Industry Relations at United Natural Foods. “We have worked with the staff of our State Organic Program to develop a pilot project that will help ensure compliance with the national organic standards. That’s good for growers and policymakers, and it will also give retailers and consumers added confidence in the decisions they make in the marketplace.”
One important factor that has expedited our progress toward the launch of the pilot project is simply that the National Organic Program (NOP) already prohibits the use of GMOs in organic products: “Compliance with the organic standards entails that operations have verifiable practices in place to avoid contact with GMOs. Since organic certification is process-based, presence of detectable GMO residues alone does not necessarily constitute a violation of the regulation. The NOP relies on organic certifiers and producers to determine preventative practices that most effectively avoid contact with GMOs on an organic operation.” (Policy memo 11-13).
The pilot project is being funded from the existing SOP budget, as recommended by COPAC, and does not impact the funds that are dedicated to ongoing regulatory efforts by CDFA staff and through contracts with county agricultural commissioners’ offices. Our existing efforts include more than 1200 inspections and up to 300 samples for pesticide residues each year, along with more than 90 complaint investigations.
For our state’s organic farmers who are used to the way we already test for pesticide residues, this pilot project will follow similar protocols, with the exception that samples collected and tested during the pilot project will be “blind” – that is, the results will be collected in aggregate form to show us whether and how much GMO material is present in our crops overall, without identifying individual farms or farmers. That’s because the goal of the project is simply to gain a basic understanding of the presence and extent of any GMOs in the state’s organic crops. To ensure uniformity of the testing process, all sample collection will be done by CDFA staff during the pilot project.
The collection and testing of samples will be conducted on a limited number of raw agricultural organic products with known risks for GMOs, including alfalfa, canola, corn, soy, zucchini and summer squash, cattle feed, and seeds/seed crops. That list could be expanded during or after the pilot project.
A final report on the findings from the pilot will be issued upon completion of the project, estimated to be late in 2016. These findings would be used by COPAC and the SOP to determine whether and how to proceed with any further work in this arena. Options would include incorporating the inspections into the ongoing SOP activities and under county contracts, expanding the list of commodities, considering additional labs/testing facilities, etc.
As we all work through this pilot project together, it is important to be mindful that the growers themselves stepped forward to make this happen. That kind of commitment and initiative is worth noticing. You have our commitment that CDFA will conduct this pilot project carefully and responsibly.
We look forward to this next step in the evolution of our oversight of organic agriculture in California. It truly speaks to the integrity of our farmers, and that’s something we can all be proud of.
By Karen Ross, Secretary, California Department of Food and Agriculture
and Jenny Lester Moffitt, Deputy Secretary, California Department of Food and Agriculture

Wednesday, October 21, 2015

MONSANTO UNDER INVESTIGATION - EMPLOYEE STOCK VIOLATIONS

Inline image 1

Notice to Monsanto Employees and Former Employees: Zamansky LLC Investigates The Monsanto Savings and Investment Plan for Possible ERISA Violations

October 21, 2015 06:52 PM Eastern Daylight Time
NEW YORK--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Zamansky LLC announces its investigation of Monsanto Company (NYSE:MON)(“Monsanto”) and the Monsanto Savings and Investment Plan (the “Plan”) for possible violations of the federal Employee Retirement Income Securities Act of 1974 (“ERISA”). ERISA imposes fiduciary duties to prudently manage and invest the assets of the Plan. These duties were potentially violated by Monsanto’s continued offering of its company stock while it allegedly knew that the stock price was artificially inflated.
On March 20, 2015, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (“IARC”), an agency of the international World Health Organization (“WHO”), issued an evaluation of several herbicides, including glyphosate. Glyphosate is the main chemical used in Monsanto’s “Roundup” pesticide responsible for over $5 billion in annual sales. The IARC evaluated studies on exposures to glyphosate since 2001, and concluded that glyphosate was Grade 2A agent and “probably carcinogenic” to humans.
Following the IARC’s report, Monsanto’s pesticide has come under intense scrutiny. Several foreign countries including France, Columbia and Brazil have reportedly banned or sought to ban the pesticide. The California Environmental Protection Agency issued notice of its intent to place glyphosate on its list of chemicals requiring labels indicating that it is carcinogenic. The news of these events have brought Monsanto’s stock price down from over $120 per share to $85 per share.
Additionally, there have been lawsuits filed against Monsanto which allege that it knowingly sold an unsafe and carcinogenic product and misled the public. A class action lawsuit was filed in California state court alleging that Monsanto engaged in false advertising that Roundup pesticide affects enzymes in plants, and not people. A former farm worker with years of exposure to Roundup pesticide filed another lawsuit in California federal court, alleging that his bone cancer was caused by the unsafe product.
According to employee stock fraud attorney, Jake Zamansky, Monsanto’s existing and former employees who purchased company stock through the Savings and Investment Plan may have suffered damage to their retirement savings. If the lawsuit allegations that Monsanto knew the risks of Roundup pesticides prove true, Zamansky states, then the Company knew that its stock price was artificially inflated and that it would correct when the truth came out. Monsanto’s existing and former employees who bought or held company stock that was artificially inflated were likely damaged, he states.
What Existing and Former Monsanto Employees Can Do
If you are an existing or former Monsanto employee who purchased or held company stock through the Monsanto Savings and Investment Plan, please contact our firm for an evaluation of your rights. If you are an existing or former Monsanto employee who has knowledge that would assist the investigation, please contact our firm. You can contact Jake Zamansky by telephone at(212) 742-1414 or by email at jake@zamansky.com.
About Zamansky LLC
Zamansky LLC is a leading stock law firm specializing in securities fraud, ERISA and employment class actions. We are investment fraud attorneys who represent both individual and institutional investors. Our practice is nationally recognized for our ability to aggressively prosecute cases and recover investment losses.
To learn more about Zamansky LLC, please visit our website, http://www.zamansky.com.

Contacts

Zamansky LLC
Jake Zamansky, 212-742-1414
jake@zamansky.com

HUNDREDS OF BOUGHT "PEER REVIEWS" CAUGHT - IN FRAUD

"How to FAKE PEER REVIEWS,"Image result for new england journal of medicine
Charlotte J. Haug, M.D., Ph.D.
October 21, 2015DOI: 10.1056/NEJMp1512330
from the New England Journal of Medicine

In August 2015, the publisher Springer retracted 64 articles from 10 different subscription journals “after editorial checks spotted fake email addresses, and subsequent internal investigations uncovered fabricated peer review reports,” according to a statement on their website.1 The retractions came only months after BioMed Central, an open-access publisher also owned by Springer, retracted 43 articles for the same reason.


“This is officially becoming a trend,” Alison McCook wrote on the blog Retraction Watch, referring to the increasing number of retractions due to fabricated peer reviews.2 Since it was first reported 3 years ago, when South Korean researcher Hyung-in Moon admitted to having invented e-mail addresses so that he could provide “peer reviews” of his own manuscripts, more than 250 articles have been retracted because of fake reviews — about 15% of the total number of retractions.

How is it possible to fake peer review? Moon, who studies medicinal plants, had set up a simple procedure. He gave journals recommendations for peer reviewers for his manuscripts, providing them with names and e-mail addresses. But these addresses were ones he created, so the requests to review went directly to him or his colleagues. Not surprisingly, the editor would be sent favorable reviews — sometimes within hours after the reviewing requests had been sent out. The fallout from Moon's confession: 28 articles in various journals published by Informa were retracted, and one editor resigned.3

Peter Chen, who was an engineer at Taiwan's National Pingtung University of Education at the time, developed a more sophisticated scheme: he constructed a “peer review and citation ring” in which he used 130 bogus e-mail addresses and fabricated identities to generate fake reviews. An editor at one of the journals published by Sage Publications became suspicious, sparking a lengthy and comprehensive investigation, which resulted in the retraction of 60 articles in July 2014.

At the end of 2014, BioMed Central and other publishers alerted the international Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) to new forms of systematic attempts to manipulate journals' peer-review processes. According to a statement published on COPE's website in January 2015, these efforts to hijack the scholarly review system were apparently orchestrated by agencies that first helped authors write or improve their scientific articles and then sold them favorable peer reviews.4 BioMed Central conducted a comprehensive investigation of all their recently published articles and identified 43 that were published on the basis of reviews from fabricated reviewers. All these articles were retracted in March 2015.

The type of peer-review fraud committed by Moon, Chen, and third-party agencies can work when journals allow or encourage authors to suggest reviewers for their own submissions. Even though many editors dislike this practice, it is frequently used, for a number of reasons. One is that in specialized fields, authors may be best qualified to suggest suitable reviewers for the topic and manuscript in question. Another is that it makes life easier for editors: finding appropriate peer reviewers who are willing to review in a timely manner can be both difficult and time consuming. A third reason may be that journals and publishers are increasingly multinational. In the past, the editor and editorial board of a journal knew both the scientific field it covered and the people working in it, but it's almost impossible to be sufficiently well connected when both editors and submissions come from all over the world. Having authors suggest the best reviewers may therefore seem like a good idea.

In the aftermath of the recent scandals involving fake peer reviewers, many journals have decided to turn off the reviewer-recommendation option on their manuscript-submission systems. But that move may not be enough, as the publisher Hindawi discovered this past spring. Although Hindawi doesn't let authors recommend reviewers for their manuscripts, it decided to examine the peer-review records for manuscripts submitted in 2013 and 2014 for possible fraud.

The peer-review procedure used in Hindawi's journals depends mainly on the expertise of its editorial board members and the guest editors of special issues, who are responsible for supervising the review of submitted manuscripts.5 Since the peer reviewers selected by the guest editors were not subject to any sort of independent verification, editors themselves could undermine the process in much the same way that authors or third-party agencies have done elsewhere: by creating fake reviewer identities and addresses from which they submitted positive reviews endorsing publication.

And that's exactly what happened — Hindawi's investigation revealed that three editors had engaged in such fraud. When all manuscripts handled by these editors were examined, a total of 32 articles were identified that had been accepted thanks to the comments of fake reviewers. It is unclear what motivated the guest editors to engage in such fraud, nor has it been determined whether the authors of the manuscripts involved participated in the deception in any way.

There are several lessons to be learned from these instances of peer-review and peer-reviewer fraud. One is that the electronic manuscript-handling systems that most journals use are as vulnerable to exploitation and hacking as other data systems. Moon and Chen, for example, both abused a feature of ScholarOne: the e-mail messages sent to scholars (at whatever address has been provided) inviting them to review a manuscript include log-in information, and whoever receives those messages can sign into the system. Most other electronic manuscript submission systems have similar loopholes that can easily be hacked.

The most important lesson is that incentives work. The enormous pressure to publish and publish fast — preferably in the very best journals — influences both authors and editors. This pressure exists almost everywhere but is particularly intense in China. It is therefore no surprise that the most inventive ways to game the peer-review system to get manuscripts published have come from China. The companies mentioned above that provide fake peer reviews all come from China and countries in Southeast Asia, and most of the authors involved in these cases come from the same areas. But it would be a mistake to look at this as a Chinese or Asian problem. The problem is the perverse incentive systems in scientific publishing. As long as authors are (mostly) rewarded for publishing many articles and editors are (mostly) rewarded for publishing them rapidly, new ways of gaming the traditional publication models will be invented more quickly than new control measures can be put in place.

Disclosure forms provided by the author are available with the full text of this article at NEJM.org.

This article was published on October 21, 2015, at NEJM.org.
Source: www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp1512330?query=TOC

http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp1512330?query=featured_home

Sunday, October 18, 2015

REGENERATION INTERNATIONAL IS BORN - FOR HEALTHY SOILS

Organic Consumers Association
View This Email On the Web | Share On Facebook

We need a message of hope . . . 

Dear Organic Consumer,
I’ve just returned from an inspirational trip to India. I went on this journey (which my fellow traveler, Vandana Shiva, refers to as a “soil pilgrimage”) to celebrate the International Year of the Soil.
But I also undertook this journey to see firsthand what many Indian farmers are up against. And also because I believe that the crises we face today—hunger, poverty, chronic illness, drought, floods—demand that we come up with solutions that we can adapt to every region of the world, and execute on a global scale.
Friday was World Food Day. It was also the day we publicly launched, in conjunction with other international leaders and organizations, a new project: Regeneration International.
What better day—the day on which the International Year of the Soil and World Food Day intersect—to remind world leaders and policymakers that without healthy soil, there are no healthy farms. Without healthy farms, there is no healthy food. Without healthy food, there are no healthy people. Without healthy farms, food and people, there are no healthy local economies.
And, as it turns out, without healthy soil, there is no healthy climate.
The world's best climate scientists warn that even if we miraculously achieve zero emissions tomorrow, on a global scale, it would take about 1,000 years to get back to the magic "safe" number of 350 ppm carbon in the atmosphere.
That could be too late.
We need a message of hope to counter such dire climate predictions. We need a message of hope for those people, all over the world, who don’t worry about global warming, because they are too worried about where their next meal will come from. 
Regeneration International’s mission is to broadcast a new message of hope. The message is this: Organic regenerative agriculture and land use practices, scaled up all over the world, can restore the soil’s natural ability to draw carbon out of the atmosphere and store it in the soil. And by restoring the health of the world’s soils, we will also revitalize local economies, and produce abundant, nutrient-dense food.
I didn’t have to go all the way to India to learn that we need to shut down our degenerative industrial GMO factory farm system and replace it with a regenerative one. But my “soil pilgrimage” did serve as an urgent reminder that there are people all over the world who go hungry, every day.
It doesn’t have to be that way. The solutions to hunger and poverty lie right under our feet, in the soil. We just have to cultivate it with consciousness.
On this World Food Day, I have several invitations for you.
If you would like to support this new projectplease make a donation here. 
If you would like to join the “Regenerator” movement, please sign up here for news and alerts. 
And please read this wonderful World Food Day essay by Vandana Shiva.
In Solidarity,
Ronnie Cummins
National Director, Organic Consumers Association and Organic Consumers Fund
P.S. I serve on the steering committee of Regeneration International, along with: Vandana Shiva (Navdanya); Tom Newmark (The Carbon Underground); Hans Herren (Millennium Institute); Andre Leu (IFOAM Organics International); Steve Rye (Mercola.com); and Renate Künast (German Parliament). Regeneration International is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit. Donations are tax deductible. Click here if you would like to support this project.

Wednesday, October 14, 2015

GMO LABELING RALLY OCT 16-17 2015 WASHINGTON DC! GET THERE!

GMO LABELING RALLY!
It’s time to come to D.C. to take our country back!

Monsanto has taken over D.C. The Biotech Bully has Congress considering the DARK Act, the President working on the TPP, and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) may soon re-register Roundup, despite a recentwarning by the World Health Organization that the most widely used herbicide in the world causes cancer in humans.
We Are The Ones We've Been Waiting For!- Mahatma Gandhi
Can you join Food Democracy Now! and our allies Organic Consumers Association, March Against Monsanto and the Truth in Labeling Coalition in D.C. on Friday October 16th and Saturday October 17th for a #FoodJustice rally planned in coordination with March Against Monsanto and other groups?
Food Justice Rally for GMO Labeling Events in Washington DC - from Congress to the White House  to the EPA

Friday, Oct. 16 2015

March - 3 p.m. to Dusk: Join OCA, March Against Monsanto and allies for a narrated march that will begin and end at Lafayette Park on the Pennsylvania Ave. side of the White House. Stops along the way will include:
The White House to deliver a petition asking President Obama to pledge to veto the DARK Act, H.R. 1599, the bill that would take away states' rights to label GMOs. Bring flashlights to shine a light on the DARK Act.
The Office of the U.S. Trade Representative to protest the Monsanto provisionthat was included in the fast-track trade promotion authority act, and the U.S. government's efforts to use trade agreements, including the TPP, to overturn laws that label, ban or regulate GMOs and pesticides. Speakers include Margaret Flowers of Flush the TPP.
The U.S. Chamber of Congress to protest the most powerful corporate front group in the U.S. and how this group has  already used the trade negotiations to block laws intended to protect human health from dangerous pesticides. 
Monsanto and the Grocery Manufacturers Association to protest how Monsanto and its Big Food allies spent $51 million to push H.R. 1599 through the House—more than $185k per vote. (And, that doesn’t even countcampaign contributions). 
The Environmental Protection Agency (at 5 p.m.) to demand that the agency refuse to reregister Monsanto's Roundup (glyphosate). Glyphosate was recently classified as a probable human carcinogen and is also decimating the monarch butterfly population. Speakers include Zen Honeycutt of Moms Across America and representatives of Beyond Pesticides, Friends of the Earth and Center for Food Safety. Please dress in bee and butterfly costumes and bring signs shaped as flowers.

Saturday, Oct. 17 2015 on the West Lawn of the Capitol

Education Workshops –10 a.m. to 12 p.m. 
Stop the DARK Act rally and potluck picnic - 12 p.m.-1:30 p.m.: Speakers will include OCA international director Ronnie Cummins, Steven Druker, author ofAltered Genes, Twisted Truth, Dr. Edward Group of the Global Healing Center,  Anthony Gucciardi of the Natural Society.

The Battle to Win GMO Labeling Has Never Been So Urgent!

This summer, on July 23rd, the House passed H.R. 1599 to strip states of the ability to pass common sense GMO lableing bills by a wide 275 votes for and 150 against the Dark Act. While this summer’s vote in the House was disappointing, the fight is far from over and we need your help in the next 6 weeks to make sure we stop Monsanto’s poison pill in the Senate.
Now that Monsanto and the Biotech industry has passed the Dark Act in one chamber of Congress, all they need to do is pass it in the Senate before it goes to the President's desk to be signed into law - and if that happens, Monsanto is betting they can kill the movement in the United States to hold them accountable.
We understand if you can't attend, but please take a moment to send your Senators a letter telling them how you feel about GMO labeling and Monsanto and the biotech industry's efforts to take away our rights and subvert democracy!

This is what happens when we stand up – Together we are unstoppable!
Thank you for participating in food democracy,
Dave, Lisa and the Food Democracy Now! team
Source:
1. House Vote 462 - House votes to pass H.R.1599 275 to 150, New York Times, July 23, 2015.