Friday, February 26, 2010
Wednesday, February 24, 2010
HAPPY, COMPARED TO WHAT?????
The Happy Story of GM Crops
Published on Wednesday, February 24, 2010 by CommonDreams.org
http://www.commondreams.org/view/2010/02/24-4
by Jim Goodman
Since the first commercial cultivation of Genetically Modified (GM) crops in 1996, Monsanto and the rest of the big six Biotech seed companies, (Pioneer/DuPont, Syngenta, Dow, BASF and Bayer) have become masters at the art of story telling.
Farmers, always looking for the next big technology fix, loved the stories; the promise of better yields, less chemicals needed for weed control, higher profits and of course, a solution to the elusive goal of feeding the world.
Governments, seeing biotechnology as a huge economic engine, embraced the technology. University research was shifted almost exclusively to biotech crops.
GM was the wave of the future, bankers encouraged planting GM crops to guarantee a "profitable harvest". Crop insurance premiums were lower for farmers planting GM. Everyone bought the story.
In a recent opinion piece in the Wisconsin State Journal former Secretary of Agriculture John Block touted the virtues of GM crops and credited them with producing higher yields, lower pesticide use and solving the ever growing problem of world hunger. Current Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack plugged GM at last weeks USDA Outlook Conference.
Problem is, the promises were just good stories. The believers are missing the truth.
Weeds have become resistant to Monsanto's Roundup herbicide and insects became resistant to the toxins produced by their GM corn.
As GM was planted on more acres, overall pesticide use went up, not down.
A University of Kansas study found that GM crops actually had lower yields than their conventional counterparts.
Even as the problems of GM crops become more apparent, the cost of GM seed continues to rise. Many farmers are backing away from GM, but finding non-GM seed is difficult, considering Monsanto controls roughly 90% of the corn and soy genetics in the U.S.
With corn and soy well under their control, Monsanto now hopes to gain USDA approval for Roundup resistant alfalfa. A perennial crop, alfalfa is the fourth most widely grown crop in the U.S. and again, Monsanto sees profit. The contamination of non-GM and organic alfalfa, the potential for further reduction of bee populations, among other problems, seem of little consequence.
Feeding the world? GM will not do it, even former Monsanto CEO Robert Shapiro admitted "The commercial industrial technologies that are used in agriculture today to feed the world... are not inherently sustainable."
Still, Monsanto bills itself as a leader in global sustainability, ignoring the fact that true sustainability cannot be achieved when your only driving goal is the next quarterly profit report.
The world stands a better chance of feeding itself by using and improving upon farming methods that have been relied upon for centuries. In Africa, for example, if indigenous crops, long adapted to their environment, were put forward as the solution to hunger, studies show that the population could have adequate food supplies and at times, cash income from sales of surplus crops.
So, why do so many continue to believe, to have faith in the story, when the evidence is against them?
When GM crops do not yield as promised?
When a USDA report shows that farmers actually loose income by planting GM crops?
When seed costs are unreasonably high as are the fertilizers and chemicals that are absolutely required to grow GM?
When consumers continue to reject GM foods citing concerns of their serious health risks?
When GM will not feed the world?
The GM story as told by the Biotech giants paints the future as a happy and prosperous place; farmers are profitable, everyone is well fed and the environment is protected.
The real GM story is not so happy, it is a story of market control, of environmental degradation, of deceived farmers and consumers.
Jim Goodman is a dairy farmer from Wonewoc WI and an IATP Food and Society Fellow
Published on Wednesday, February 24, 2010 by CommonDreams.org
http://www.commondreams.org/view/2010/02/24-4
by Jim Goodman
Since the first commercial cultivation of Genetically Modified (GM) crops in 1996, Monsanto and the rest of the big six Biotech seed companies, (Pioneer/DuPont, Syngenta, Dow, BASF and Bayer) have become masters at the art of story telling.
Farmers, always looking for the next big technology fix, loved the stories; the promise of better yields, less chemicals needed for weed control, higher profits and of course, a solution to the elusive goal of feeding the world.
Governments, seeing biotechnology as a huge economic engine, embraced the technology. University research was shifted almost exclusively to biotech crops.
GM was the wave of the future, bankers encouraged planting GM crops to guarantee a "profitable harvest". Crop insurance premiums were lower for farmers planting GM. Everyone bought the story.
In a recent opinion piece in the Wisconsin State Journal former Secretary of Agriculture John Block touted the virtues of GM crops and credited them with producing higher yields, lower pesticide use and solving the ever growing problem of world hunger. Current Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack plugged GM at last weeks USDA Outlook Conference.
Problem is, the promises were just good stories. The believers are missing the truth.
Weeds have become resistant to Monsanto's Roundup herbicide and insects became resistant to the toxins produced by their GM corn.
As GM was planted on more acres, overall pesticide use went up, not down.
A University of Kansas study found that GM crops actually had lower yields than their conventional counterparts.
Even as the problems of GM crops become more apparent, the cost of GM seed continues to rise. Many farmers are backing away from GM, but finding non-GM seed is difficult, considering Monsanto controls roughly 90% of the corn and soy genetics in the U.S.
With corn and soy well under their control, Monsanto now hopes to gain USDA approval for Roundup resistant alfalfa. A perennial crop, alfalfa is the fourth most widely grown crop in the U.S. and again, Monsanto sees profit. The contamination of non-GM and organic alfalfa, the potential for further reduction of bee populations, among other problems, seem of little consequence.
Feeding the world? GM will not do it, even former Monsanto CEO Robert Shapiro admitted "The commercial industrial technologies that are used in agriculture today to feed the world... are not inherently sustainable."
Still, Monsanto bills itself as a leader in global sustainability, ignoring the fact that true sustainability cannot be achieved when your only driving goal is the next quarterly profit report.
The world stands a better chance of feeding itself by using and improving upon farming methods that have been relied upon for centuries. In Africa, for example, if indigenous crops, long adapted to their environment, were put forward as the solution to hunger, studies show that the population could have adequate food supplies and at times, cash income from sales of surplus crops.
So, why do so many continue to believe, to have faith in the story, when the evidence is against them?
When GM crops do not yield as promised?
When a USDA report shows that farmers actually loose income by planting GM crops?
When seed costs are unreasonably high as are the fertilizers and chemicals that are absolutely required to grow GM?
When consumers continue to reject GM foods citing concerns of their serious health risks?
When GM will not feed the world?
The GM story as told by the Biotech giants paints the future as a happy and prosperous place; farmers are profitable, everyone is well fed and the environment is protected.
The real GM story is not so happy, it is a story of market control, of environmental degradation, of deceived farmers and consumers.
Jim Goodman is a dairy farmer from Wonewoc WI and an IATP Food and Society Fellow
Wednesday, February 10, 2010
SUPPORT H.R. 4310: CUT U.S. TAX BREAKS ON JUNK FOOD ADS TO KIDS!
Congressman Dennis Kucinich: Don’t Subsidize Childhood Obesity
Revoke tax breaks for junk food advertising
WASHINGTON - February 9 - Congressman Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) today made the following statement after First Lady Michelle Obama announced a new effort to combat childhood obesity:
http://www.highlighthealth.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/09/tv-kids.jpg
“I support the First Lady’s ambitious efforts to combat childhood obesity. During childhood, we develop the eating habits and preferences that can drive our food choices for the rest of our lives. We need to ensure that families can make their own decisions about their diet, without the manipulative influence of the highly profitable and sometimes predatory junk food industry.
“Most Americans don’t know that the government now subsidizes the marketing of junk food and fast food to kids in order to cement their brand and taste allegiances early in life. That is why I introduced HR 4310, which would revoke the tax breaks that companies receive for advertising and marketing unhealthy food to children,” said Kucinich.
According to the Institute of Medicine, in 2004 approximately $10 billion was spent on food advertising directed at children. Plainly stated, marketing to children works. If it didn’t work, they wouldn’t do it. A child’s developing brain is no match for a $10 billion industry that uses the best behavioral and developmental research to create emotional bonds to brands before the children’s ability to distinguish fact from opinion has developed.
“By continuing to use hard-earned taxpayer money to subsidize this marketing and advertising, we are undercutting our own efforts to curb the obesity epidemic. HR 4310 would end this practice, protect American children, and ensure that they grow up in a healthy environment. Moreover, in today’s budget-conscious environment, HR 4310 is a commonsense way to provide funding for the First Lady’s initiative,” added Kucinich.
CONTACT: Congressman Dennis Kucinich - Nathan White (202)225-5871
http://www.commondreams.org/newswire/2010/02/09-10
Revoke tax breaks for junk food advertising
WASHINGTON - February 9 - Congressman Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) today made the following statement after First Lady Michelle Obama announced a new effort to combat childhood obesity:
http://www.highlighthealth.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/09/tv-kids.jpg
“I support the First Lady’s ambitious efforts to combat childhood obesity. During childhood, we develop the eating habits and preferences that can drive our food choices for the rest of our lives. We need to ensure that families can make their own decisions about their diet, without the manipulative influence of the highly profitable and sometimes predatory junk food industry.
“Most Americans don’t know that the government now subsidizes the marketing of junk food and fast food to kids in order to cement their brand and taste allegiances early in life. That is why I introduced HR 4310, which would revoke the tax breaks that companies receive for advertising and marketing unhealthy food to children,” said Kucinich.
According to the Institute of Medicine, in 2004 approximately $10 billion was spent on food advertising directed at children. Plainly stated, marketing to children works. If it didn’t work, they wouldn’t do it. A child’s developing brain is no match for a $10 billion industry that uses the best behavioral and developmental research to create emotional bonds to brands before the children’s ability to distinguish fact from opinion has developed.
“By continuing to use hard-earned taxpayer money to subsidize this marketing and advertising, we are undercutting our own efforts to curb the obesity epidemic. HR 4310 would end this practice, protect American children, and ensure that they grow up in a healthy environment. Moreover, in today’s budget-conscious environment, HR 4310 is a commonsense way to provide funding for the First Lady’s initiative,” added Kucinich.
CONTACT: Congressman Dennis Kucinich - Nathan White (202)225-5871
http://www.commondreams.org/newswire/2010/02/09-10
SORRY, HILL...GMO's NOT The Solution - Helen Clark, United Nations
When asked directly if she agreed with US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's science advisor, Dr. Nina Federoff, that without GE (genetic engineering) the world would suffer future food shortages, [the Chief Administrator of the United Nations Development Programme, Helen Clark] said "I don't think GE is the solution to the food security problem."
Head of the UNDP gets it right on agriculture
Centre for Integrated Research in Biosafety: Press Release, 17 February 2010
http://www.inbi.canterbury.ac.nz/
The Chief Administrator of the United Nations Development Programme said today that world food security depended upon getting "back to basics" with agriculture.
Former New Zealand Prime Minister Helen Clark, who now heads the UNDP, spoke on what she saw as the solution to future food security problems. Responding to questions today on Zealand's national radio show Nine to Noon, Ms. Clark said that "smarter farming and production has got to be part of the solution".
When asked directly if she agreed with US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's science advisor Dr. Nina Federoff that without GE (genetic engineering) the world would suffer future food shortages, she said "I don't think GE is the solution to the food security problem."
Instead, Clark argued for more funding for agriculture that emphasised solutions to the problems faced by poor farmers. Public funding for extension services and agricultural research that improves productivity and yield had to increase rather than relying upon genetically modified organisms.
Ms. Clark could have been reading straight from the International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development (IAASTD), the internationally peer-reviewed World Bank and UN report published last year after winning endorsement from 58 governments. This report represents the work of the largest research effort to date on the history and future of modern agriculture. Consistent with Clark’s statements, the IAASTD also endorsed a renewed emphasis on technologies that have proven track records for improving yield, reducing external inputs into agroecosystems, preventing the conversion of more land for agriculture and helping agriculture to improve the lives of poor and subsistence farmers.
Those kinds of technologies include conventional crop breeding, agroecological methods for increasing soil moisture retention and decreasing erosion, and intensification using more diverse cropping strategies and cover crops rather than fossil fuel-intensive fertilizers and damaging monocultures.
The giant agrochemical and biotechnology companies, along with Federoff, have been advocating reduced regulation and broader uptake of GE in order to feed the world. Clark noted, however, that using crops for biofuel was competing with crops for food. She concluded that "I wouldn't jump to the conclusion that modified crops were the answer."
For more on the IAASTD
http://www.agassessment.org/
https://sites.google.com/site/therightbiotechnology/
Professor Jack A. Heinemann
Director INBI
Dr. Joanna Goven
Deputy Director
BIG ORGANIC MILK VICTORY!!!!!!!
New USDA Rules Establish Strong Organic Standards for Pasture and Livestock
Family Farmers Call Rule a Victory for Integrity of Organic Food and Agriculture
Swift and Judicious Enforcement of Abuses Now Expected by Obama Administration
WASHINGTON - February 12, 2010 -
After over 10 years of lobbying, family farmers across the country, who produce organic milk, are celebrating the release of strict new USDA regulations that establish distinct benchmarks requiring the grazing and pasturing of dairy cows and other livestock. Many hope that the new rule will put an end to the abuses that have flooded the organic market with suspect milk from a handful of mega-dairies generally confining thousands of animals in feed lots and barns.
The biggest scandal in the history of the organic industry centered around one such USDA investigation with the regulators finding "willful" violations of 14 organic regulations on factory farms operated by Aurora Dairy, a $100+ million company based in Colorado (Aurora produces private-label, store brand milk for Wal-Mart, Costco and large grocery chains). "The public controversies concerning Aurora, and alleged improprieties by the largest milk processor in the country, Dean Foods (Horizon Organic), put increasing pressure on the USDA to rein-in the scofflaws in this industry," Kastel added.
Specifically, the new rules require that dairy cows and other ruminants be out on pasture for the entire growing season, but for not less than 120 days. It also requires that the animals receive at least 30% of their feed, or dry matter intake (DMI), from pasturing. In addition, organic livestock will be required to have access to the outdoors year-round with the exception of temporary confinement due to mitigating and documentable environmental or health considerations.
Full Text: http://www.commondreams.org/newswire/2010/02/12-7
CONTACT: Cornucopia Institute
Mark Kastel, 608-625-2042
G.M. CROPS CANNOT COEXIST WITH CONVENTIONAL CROPS- U.S. COURT RULING!!! MORE CASES TO FOLLOW!
Food and Water Europe Welcomes U.S. Court Ruling for Compensation by GM Contaminators
Statement of Food & Water Europe Executive Director Wenonah Hauter
WASHINGTON - February 12, 2010 - “We welcome the ruling from a federal court in Arkansas requiring Bayer Crop Science to pay $1.5 million to two U.S. rice farmers as compensation for contamination. We are pleased to see the federal court step in to protect farmers and consumers when regulatory bodies fail.
“We hope this proves once and for all that genetically modified crops cannot ‘coexist’ with conventional crops. Bayer Crop Science has already been ordered to pay $2 million to two other farmers and three more test cases will be heard soon, including one from a rice exporter.
“This recent ruling is set against the backdrop of other U.S. court cases halting the cultivation of GM alfalfa and sugar beets because the regulators failed to adequately assess the impacts of the crops and because of potential irreversible environmental damage. The U.S. Supreme Court will soon hear a case about the safety of GM seed and the U.S. Department of Justice is pursuing an anti-trust investigation of Monsanto.”
Furthermore, U.S. rice exports to the EU are continuing to be affected by a contamination incident some three and a half years later, showing just how damaging GM crops can be. This is just more evidence that this technology is not economically or environmentally viable.”
For more information, visit http://www.foodandwaterwatch.org/world/europe
Contact:
Eve Mitchell, Food and Water Europe, The Black Isle, Scotland
emitchell@fweurope.org +44 (0)1381 610 740
Gabriella Zanzanaini, Food and Water Europe, Brussels
gzanzanaini@fweurope.org, +32488409662
CONTACT: Food & Water Watch - Europe
Erin Greenfield at (202) 683-2457 or
news[at]fwwatch[dot]org
Statement of Food & Water Europe Executive Director Wenonah Hauter
WASHINGTON - February 12, 2010 - “We welcome the ruling from a federal court in Arkansas requiring Bayer Crop Science to pay $1.5 million to two U.S. rice farmers as compensation for contamination. We are pleased to see the federal court step in to protect farmers and consumers when regulatory bodies fail.
“We hope this proves once and for all that genetically modified crops cannot ‘coexist’ with conventional crops. Bayer Crop Science has already been ordered to pay $2 million to two other farmers and three more test cases will be heard soon, including one from a rice exporter.
“This recent ruling is set against the backdrop of other U.S. court cases halting the cultivation of GM alfalfa and sugar beets because the regulators failed to adequately assess the impacts of the crops and because of potential irreversible environmental damage. The U.S. Supreme Court will soon hear a case about the safety of GM seed and the U.S. Department of Justice is pursuing an anti-trust investigation of Monsanto.”
Furthermore, U.S. rice exports to the EU are continuing to be affected by a contamination incident some three and a half years later, showing just how damaging GM crops can be. This is just more evidence that this technology is not economically or environmentally viable.”
For more information, visit http://www.foodandwaterwatch.org/world/europe
Contact:
Eve Mitchell, Food and Water Europe, The Black Isle, Scotland
emitchell@fweurope.org +44 (0)1381 610 740
Gabriella Zanzanaini, Food and Water Europe, Brussels
gzanzanaini@fweurope.org, +32488409662
CONTACT: Food & Water Watch - Europe
Erin Greenfield at (202) 683-2457 or
news[at]fwwatch[dot]org
INDIAN COURT REJECTS BAYER'S CLAIM TO PATENT MEDICINES!!
Indian Court Gives Boost to Access to Medicines as Latest Appeal by Bayer is Rejected
NEW DEHLI/GENEVA - February 9 - In a welcome move for access to medicines, the Delhi High Court has rejected the appeal filed by the German pharmaceutical company Bayer Corporation against an earlier court order which had rejected the implementation of a drug regulatory system which essentially linked registration of medicines to their patent status.
In August 2009, the Delhi High Court had rejected the petition filed by Bayer Corporation, seeking to stop the Drug Controller General of India (DCGI) from granting marketing approval to a generic version of a cancer drug patented by Bayer.
“We are delighted with this decision – at the moment in India we are seeing a number of multinational pharmaceutical companies trying to use litigation to stifle generic competition,” said Dr. Tido von Schoen-Angerer of Médecins Sans Frontières’ Campaign for Access to Essential Medicines. “By rejecting Bayer’s attempts to introduce patent linkage, the Indian courts have ensured that public health safeguards like compulsory licensing can be used to open up generic production of life-saving medicines including antiretrovirals for millions in India and beyond. We hope this judicial precedent of safeguarding public health in patent disputes will continue, as matters such as these, and the forthcoming Novartis case go up to the Supreme Court.”
Anand Grover, counsel for Cancer Patients Aid Association added: “In India, we do not have a patent linkage system. The patent system and the drug regulatory system are two separate and independent mechanisms and this is Parliament’s intent. We hope that Bayer and other pharmaceutical companies respect this fact. A patent holder cannot use the DCGI, a government agency, to enforce its private rights. This was an attempt to introduce a TRIPS-plus requirement in India, which has been rejected.”
###
Doctors Without Borders/Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF) is an international medical humanitarian organization created by doctors and journalists in France in 1971. MSF's work is based on the humanitarian principles of medical ethics and impartiality. The organization is committed to bringing quality medical care to people caught in crisis regardless of race, religion, or political affiliation.
MSF operates independently of any political, military, or religious agendas.
CONTACT: Doctors Without Borders/MSF
Emily Linendoll Press Officer Direct: 212-763-5764 Mobile: 646-206-9387
E-mail: emily.linendoll@msf.org
http://www.commondreams.org/newswire/2010/02/09-11
NEW DEHLI/GENEVA - February 9 - In a welcome move for access to medicines, the Delhi High Court has rejected the appeal filed by the German pharmaceutical company Bayer Corporation against an earlier court order which had rejected the implementation of a drug regulatory system which essentially linked registration of medicines to their patent status.
In August 2009, the Delhi High Court had rejected the petition filed by Bayer Corporation, seeking to stop the Drug Controller General of India (DCGI) from granting marketing approval to a generic version of a cancer drug patented by Bayer.
“We are delighted with this decision – at the moment in India we are seeing a number of multinational pharmaceutical companies trying to use litigation to stifle generic competition,” said Dr. Tido von Schoen-Angerer of Médecins Sans Frontières’ Campaign for Access to Essential Medicines. “By rejecting Bayer’s attempts to introduce patent linkage, the Indian courts have ensured that public health safeguards like compulsory licensing can be used to open up generic production of life-saving medicines including antiretrovirals for millions in India and beyond. We hope this judicial precedent of safeguarding public health in patent disputes will continue, as matters such as these, and the forthcoming Novartis case go up to the Supreme Court.”
Anand Grover, counsel for Cancer Patients Aid Association added: “In India, we do not have a patent linkage system. The patent system and the drug regulatory system are two separate and independent mechanisms and this is Parliament’s intent. We hope that Bayer and other pharmaceutical companies respect this fact. A patent holder cannot use the DCGI, a government agency, to enforce its private rights. This was an attempt to introduce a TRIPS-plus requirement in India, which has been rejected.”
###
Doctors Without Borders/Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF) is an international medical humanitarian organization created by doctors and journalists in France in 1971. MSF's work is based on the humanitarian principles of medical ethics and impartiality. The organization is committed to bringing quality medical care to people caught in crisis regardless of race, religion, or political affiliation.
MSF operates independently of any political, military, or religious agendas.
CONTACT: Doctors Without Borders/MSF
Emily Linendoll Press Officer Direct: 212-763-5764 Mobile: 646-206-9387
E-mail: emily.linendoll@msf.org
http://www.commondreams.org/newswire/2010/02/09-11
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)