Saturday, August 11, 2012

DATASETS: SWINDLING THE WORLD FOR OUR COMMON LANDS

Victim of land grab in Uganda (photo courtesy of <a href="http://www.oxfamamerica.org/articles/land-grabs-take-a-sneak-peek">Oxfam America</a>)

Victim of land grab in Uganda (photo courtesy of Oxfam America)

Today GRAIN is making available a new data set documenting 416 recent, large-scale land grabs by foreign investors for the production of food crops. The cases cover nearly 35 million hectares of land in 66 countries.

The data set is available in HTML below, in XLS and PDF formats and in this interactive global map of land grabs created by Varun Mangla / Circle of Blue.

This is not an exhaustive list of all land deals. It focuses only on those deals that:

were initiated after 2006,
have not been cancelled,
are led by foreign investors,
are for the production of food crops, and
involve large areas of land.

Deals for sugar cane and palm oil production were included but not those for crops like jatropha or cotton.

The collection of deals provides a stark snapshot of how agribusiness has been rapidly expanding across the globe since the food and financial crises of 2008 and how this is taking food production out of the hands of farmers and local communities.

It confirms that Africa is the primary target of the land grabs, but it also underlines the importance of Latin America, Asia and Eastern Europe, demonstrating that this is a global phenomenon.

The data set also paints a clear picture of who the land grabbers are. While most of the 298 land grabbers documented are from the agribusiness sector, financial companies and sovereign wealth funds are responsible for about a third of the deals. And on many occasions there is overlap. For instance, the data set shows how Cargill, one of the world's largest agribusiness companies, has been acquiring hundreds of thousands of hectares of farmland through its hedge fund Black River Asset Management.

European and Asian based investors account for about two thirds of the land grabs within the data set. China and India are major sources of land grabbers, as are the UK and Germany. But the UK, much like Singapore and Mauritius, serves as a tax haven for land grabbers, and often the true operating bases of the companies reside elsewhere. Other major centres of land grabbers are the US, which tops the list at 41 cases, and the UAE and Saudi Arabia with 39 combined.

This table is based on data available to us, most of it collected from the website farmlandgrab.org. It has not been verified against realities on the ground. It is also a summary, and as such doesn't capture all nuances and details. Sources are available on request.

The data set is available in HTML below and in XLS and PDF formats. This interactive global map of land grabs created by Varun Mangla / Circle of Blue is one example of how the data is being used. Please contact us if you know of others or would like to suggest one.

French and Spanish versions are also available.

Other recently released data sets from GRAIN on land grabbing

Extent of farmland grabbing for food production by foreign interests: How much agricultural land has been sold or leased off? (December 2011). A table showing the percentage of the area grabbed by foreigners -- for the production of crops and livestock -- in terms of arable land, agricultural land and total land area per country.

Pension funds investing in global farmland for food production (updated December 2011). A table that shows which pensions funds are buying up farmland, where they are buying it and how much they are spending.

Land grabbing and the global food crisis - presentation (December 2011). A powerpoint presentation providing a general overview of the land grab trend, which includes maps and summaries of land grab cases.

For further information, please contact:

Devlin Kuyek in Montreal, Canada
devlin@grain.org
+1 514 571 7702

Renée Vellvé in Paris, France
renee@grain.org
+33 6 75073468

Carlos Vicente in Marcos Paz, Argentina
carlos@grain.org
+549 11 63088809

MONSANTO FRANKENEDUCATION TO FILL FRANKENKIDS FULL OF LIES

Monsanto has come out with a children's book. (photo: YMCA)

Monsanto Tries Biotech Brainwash With Kid's Book

By Diane Petryk Bloom, The Examiner

11 August 12

Monsanto has come out with a children's book. (photo: YMCA)

ith sweet corn containing a genetically engineered toxin headed toward Wal-Mart produce sections as you read this, it's time to talk about Monsanto's evil little kid's book.

The corn is from Monsanto seeds, which produce a plant that exudes bt toxin, a pesticide that will kill insects that feed on the plant. It's coming to Wal-Mart from farms in the Midwest, Northwest, Southeast and Texas. It will be the first genetically modified food to go directly from the farm to consumers - unlabled as GMO. Besides the toxin people who east the corn will consume, there are other serious farming issues with genetically modified crops outside the scope of this article. But it should be noted that Whole Foods, Trader Joe's and General Mills have vowed to not sell or use the genetically engineered.

Apparently, enough adults are informed and concerned enough to raise a stink, so Monsanto is aiming at the next generation, eyes always on the profit prize. How else to explain the absurd disinformation of the Biotechnology Basic Activity Book it sponsors?.

No book should be banned. That's an axiom of this column.

Choices, however, are legitimate. As parents and librarians, gift-giving grandparents, whatever, we eschew children's books that are too scary for our little ones, we don't choose books that seem stupid or unfunny, and, most importantly, we don't want books that are a pack of lies.

It's proper, too, to shield tender young minds from harsh realities - but when they're ready and we intend to inform them, our job is to get real.

Monsanto thinks otherwise.

If you think a food additive that kills human kidney cells improves our health, don't read any further, the GMO propaganda machine has already fried your brains. The U.S. allows this stuff. Corporations own our government. But the European Union, Japan, Australia, Brazil, Russia and China, require labeling for GE foods. (It's staggering to think that Russia and China are more concerned about their citizens' health than the majority of our elected representatives.)

One constantly wonders if any of these corporate people or bought politicians have grandchildren, or even think about the consequences of poisoning the food supply or the land in ways that will harm them, their great-grandchildren, and generations beyond. Forget it, they aren't that human.

Monsanto is likely the most evil multi-national corporation ever. They make Phillip Morris and R.J. Reynolds getting kids hooked on tobacco look absolutely benign; BP's malfeasance in the Gulf oil spew minor, Ciby Geigy pushing Ritalin on kids and useless, dangerous drugs to third world countries - fogeddaboutit. Maybe Dow ... but Monsanto must take the prize.

These are the people that brought us polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), now banned worldwide; DDT, banned for most uses, and Agent Orange, the defoliant than caused birth defects among generations of Vietnamese and children of U.S. soldiers exposed to it..

These are the people who put bovine growth hormone in our milk supply. Neither you nor I may say that makes our milk any different or they will sue us. (Only why have other countries banned its use?) And the cows, who suffer terribly, can't speak up for themselves.

These are the people who invented terminator seeds, so farmers can't collect seeds from their plants, and replant with them, They have to buy more seeds from Monsanto. What monster could think up a terminator seed? (One envisions Arnold Swartzenegger with a machine gun spewing seeds at recalcitrant planters.)

And when they aren't terminator seeds, Monsanto still doesn't want plants produced from its seeds used to propagate a next generation.

Health writer Anthony Gucciardi says Monsanto is to blame for one farmer suicide every 30 minutes across a swath of India. It happens like this:

Farmers pay exorbitantly higher prices to plant genetically modified seeds that Monsanto promises will yield more. Often they do not, and tremendously more water is needed to grow them anyway. The crops do poorly, then Monsanto swoops in and charges a royalty on the next batch, often to the farmers' financial ruin.

The practice of using renewal seeds dates back to ancient times, but Monsanto seeks to collect royalties on what it says is its patented "intellectual property" --the original seeds. Something the Indian government calls an attempt to patent life.

If you don't want them at all, you still aren't safe. When Monsanto's genetically modified seeds accidentally blow over and contaminate a non-GMO farm, often an organic one, the corporation sues the farmer for "using" the patented seeds they didn't want in the first place! In a just world, Monsanto would owe reparations to the organic farmer.

They're clever people, to be sure. Monsanto was the first to genetically modified a plant.cell (in 1982).

So here we are in 2012 facing Monsanto's unprecedented messing with Mother Nature - the genetically modified plant.

Based purely on anecdotal evidence, admittedly, I believe most people think "genetically modified" simply means designing a hardier tomato, lettuce or bean. A shinier apple, maybe. Would it were just that! Nope, genetically modified means they are inserting a pesticide in the genome of the plant. A killer we will all eat.

There is no way to wash it off. The pesticide is systemic - within the plant. Part of the plant. It IS the plant.

It may not affect human health, but it may. We don't know. And Monsanto doesn't want anyone to have a choice in whether or not they take the gamble. They are fighting GMO labeling requirements.

The main battleground right now is in California, where labeling is on the November ballot. California is a big state, so as California goes, so goes the nation, some say.

CALLING ALL CALIFORNIANS: Please vote for labeling!

In the meantime, worry about the bees, too. Beekeepers and researchers say these systemic pesticides are apparently killing off bee colonies at an alarming rate. Bees are needed to pollinate a vast number of fruit and vegetable crops.

It is said that Albert Einstein once predicted that mankind could survive the demise of the honeybee for only perhaps four years.

Here's why more water is needed for bt toxin plants. Portland State University researchers reported in April that the corn aimed at insects also damages beneficial soil life. The roots of bt corn, they found a decrease in mycorrhizal fungi, which are important for nutrient and water uptake.

Imagine more water being needed to grow plants in a land like India, or drought ravaged world.

Is Monsanto a company you want speaking to your children or grandchildren?

The Biotechnology Basic Activity Book, produced by an organization laughably called the Council for Biotechnology Information. Its members are Monsanto and BASF, BAYER CropScience, Dow AgroSciences, DuPont, and Syngenta.

The book can be examined on the council's website. Judge for yourself which of these claims for genetically modified food are true:

It help us grow more food.

It helps the environment.

It grows more nutritious food that improves our health.

Kids are given puzzles to "learn more about biotechnology and all of the wonderful ways it can help people live better lives in a healthier world.l"

Science writer Anthony Gucciardi writes:

"According to 900 scientists, GMO crops actually do not grow more food than traditional farming practices. In fact, they are simply not an effective tool to fight starvation in any capacity, thanks to their excessive costs and immense failure to yield crops. ...(and) genetically modified seeds were outperformed by traditional "agro-ecological" farming practices.

Do GMO's improve our health? "... Nothing could be farther from the truth." Gucciardi writes. "A prominent review of 19 studies examining the safety of GMO crops found that consumption of GMO corn or soybeans can lead to significant organ disruptions in rats and mice - particularly in the liver and kidneys. . Monsanto’s modified biopesticide, known as Bt, has been found to be killing human kidney cells in conjunction with Monsanto’s best-selling herbicide Roundup.

"Roundup ready crops have also been linked to mental illness, obesity, infertility, and DNA damage."

Helping the environment? Gucciardi calls this the most ludicrous claim of all. (Remember, this is what kids are reading in this book and teachers are supposed to take as a guide in instructing their pupils.)

"Research has shown that Monsanto’s modified Bt pesticide is actually mutating the very genetic coding of insect life on the planet, creating super resistant ‘mutant’ bugs that are wreaking havoc on farms using Monsanto’s harmful concoctions across the globe. At least eight populations of insects have developed some form of resistance, with two populations resistant to Bt sprays and at least 6 species resistant to Bt crops as a whole.

"Perhaps most concerning is the mounting rootworm resistance as a result of Monsanto’s GMO corn usage. A group of 22 academic corn experts recently petitioned the EPA over the extreme danger presented by the crops... agricultural stability is threatened...(due to) the mass amount of ‘superweeds’ currently springing up around the globe as a result of Monsanto’s Roundup. These resistant weeds currently cover over 4.5 million hectares in the United States alone, though experts estimate the world-wide land coverage to have reached at least 120 million hectares by 2010. The onset of superweeds is being increasingly documented in Australia, Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Europe and South Africa."

This biotech book represents a war for the minds of the next generation, Gucciardi says..

Surely it's not the only propaganda ever aimed at children. But it does highlight the need for parents and librarians and teachers to be super vigilant when corporations write books.

The answer is not to ban the book. Just don't buy it, literally and figuratively.

And counter it with better books.

Source: http://www.examiner.com/article/monsanto-tries-biotech-brainwash-with-kid-s-book

USING MORE WATER THAN NATURE CAN REPLENISH

U.S. Drought Exposes “Hydro-Illogical” Water Management

By Carlota Cortes Reprint |

Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack tours Eric Cress' farm to examine crop damage caused by the drought near Center Point, Iowa. Eric and his father Dale said their farm in eastern Iowa is running around seven inches behind normal rain levels for this time of year. Credit: USDA photo by Darin Leach

NEW YORK, Aug 11 2012 (IPS) - The historic drought withering much of the United States this summer has revealed a need for strategies to better manage water supplies that could remain under severe pressure both this year and in the longer term.

On Friday, the U.S. Agriculture Department said that corn yields – which account for nearly 40 percent of the global harvest – would be 17 percent lower than expected, contributing to an overall rise in food prices of three to four percent next year.

Van Ayers, an agriculture and rural development specialist with the University of Missouri Extension in Bloomfield, predicts a continued expansion of irrigation systems.

“When I first moved to southeast Missouri over 20 years ago, there were approximately 300,000 acres with irrigation,” he told IPS. “Now there is over one million. This trend will not change.”

How to keep the 2012 drought from draining your wallet

By Robin Madel

Cross-posted from Ecocentric

Drought is putting strain on food, water, energy, and the places where they intersect. (Photo by Shutterstock.)

What a difference a year makes. Last spring, farmers along the Mississippi River watched in horror as the Army Corps of Engineers blew up levees to let floodwaters run into their fields in order to protect downriver cities (check out this NASA video of before and after LANDSAT photos). This year, farmers around the country are watching helplessly as drought causes widespread crop damage. In some places along the Mississippi River, water levels are 50 feet below last year’s near record high levels. Unfortunately for a country already struggling with a slow economy, damage caused by this drought is going to be expensive and could affect many parts of our lives. Our food, water, and energy systems are so intertwined that a crisis affecting any one of those resources can throw the others seriously out of balance.
As of June 2012, more than half of the country was in various stages of drought (according to information from the weekly U.S. Drought Monitor Report) and more than one-third of the nation’s counties had been declared federal disaster areas. In July, we didn’t get much relief, so that number is rising. Food, water, and energy come together to form an important nexus. We’re experiencing that nexus firsthand, because the worst drought since 1956 will likely produce significant impacts on food and fuel prices, and could cause urban water supplies in some regions of the country to dry up — with staggering consequences.
Here’s how food, water, and energy are being impacted by the 2012 drought, and some tips to help you minimize the impacts of these higher prices on your budget.

Photo by Shutterstock.

The obvious impact is damage to crops, especially to corn and soy. With no rain falling, crops are failing in places where crops are not irrigated or where irrigation water is in short supply. Corn is especially problematic because it’s in practically everything we eat (we even put it into our gas tanks). Check out the labels on those boxed, canned, and bottled products you might be buying at the grocery store. The chances are they’re made with corn or soy. Also, if you eat beef, poultry, pork, or even farmed fish, those animals were probably given feed made up of corn or soy. Dairy products and eggs? Same thing. Prices will likely be rising on meat and dairy products over the next few months, and certainly by next year. Processed foods and cereals are less likely to see the massive price spikes because those foods are generally cheaper to produce (at least they seem cheaper on the surface) but are generally much less nutritious than whole foods.
This would be a good time to:

Start cutting back on how much meat you eat (consider trying a Meatless Monday option) or switching to food that comes from animals raised under more sustainable conditions.

Consider using meat and dairy products as accents rather than the main ingredients in your diet. Try changing to a diet based on fresh and whole (meaning less processed) foods like fruits and vegetables, the price of which aren’t expected to be as significantly impacted by the drought because they are generally irrigated and the water is highly regulated.

Investigate locally produced food options you can buy via farmers markets and community-supported agriculture.

Diminishing corn supplies could also affect gasoline prices. There are mandates in place for the amount of ethanol that has to be included in gasoline, and American ethanol is made primarily from — you guessed it — corn. In fact, 40 percent of last year’s corn crop went toward making ethanol. In this time of limited corn supplies, livestock producers aren’t happy with the mandates or with having to compete for corn for their feed. The EPA could decide to lower the amount of ethanol required in gasoline, but that probably won’t happen until next year.
This would be a good time to:

Find other forms of transportation that don’t involve putting gas in your car like walking and biking, taking the bus or train, or even telecommuting. Even using less gas by carpooling and not letting your engine idle will help you save some money as fuel prices rise.

Electric power production can also be impacted when water supplies run low. Many power plants (those that use thermoelectric processes, anyway) rely on water for cooling purposes. This is why many power plants are located next to water bodies. As the drought continues, water levels in rivers and lakes will drop, impacting power production in two ways. First, there is simply not as much water available to use for cooling the steam produced from the plants’ processes. Also, once the steam has been cooled, the water used to cool it has been heated up and it’s usually put back into the water body it was initially taken out of. As water levels in rivers and lakes drop, the water can warm up. If the water temperature gets high enough, state regulations may prohibit plant operators from discharging cooling water into the water body in order to protect fish and other aquatic life. Or, the water temperature in the water body itself could get too warm for the plant to use at all; as a result, the plant may have to cease operation. Often this means that power plants have to stop producing electricity, disrupting the stability of the electrical grid.
This might be a good time to:

Consider switching to renewable power technologies that use very little water in their production processes.

Finally, the most obvious impact of the drought is that surface and groundwater supplies aren’t being replenished as they get used up for residential and other municipal purposes. Residential water use can double, triple, or even quadruple in the summertime because of lawn watering, further straining water supplies. If the drought continues, some communities will find themselves making tough decisions about water allocation, including restrictions on residential watering and even prohibitions on agricultural irrigation.
This would be a good time to:

Conserve outdoor water use, a critical step in times of drought and stressed water supplies.

By now, it should be clear how food, water, and energy systems rely on and impact each other. Our infrastructure is connected and, while it seems resilient, it often takes very little to put things out of balance. Changing how we eat and use water and energy, when done collectively, can make a big difference in the availability and, ultimately, the sustainability of the natural resources we rely on throughout our lives.

Robin Madel is a Research and Policy Analyst for the GRACE Water and Energy Programs. She has worked in the water and wastewater industry and helped close the Rocky Flats Environmental Technology.

SOURCE: http://grist.org/food/how-to-keep-the-2012-drought-from-draining-your-wallet/

WE ARE THE EATERS WE'VE BEEN WAITING FOR - CA PROP 37 IS THE FOOD FIGHT OF OUR LIVES

EWG Joins California’s Fight To Label Genetically Engineered Food

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
August 10, 2012
1:46 PM

CONTACT: Environmental Working Group (EWG)

EWG Public Affairs: Alex Formuzis (202) 667.6982 or alex@ewg.org

Obama, Romney won't help: We have to claim this right for ourselves

Oakland, Calif. - August 10 - Californians deserve the right to know whether their food contains genetically engineered ingredients, just as consumers do in 40 other countries around the world, including China. But the only way they’ll win that right is by voting yes on Proposition 37 on November 6, and today Environmental Working Group, a national research and advocacy organization, announced that it will join the fight to pass the measure.
Proposition 37, a relatively straightforward proposal would require a simple label on any food product that contains ingredients that have been genetically modified, commonly called GMOs. More than 1 million Californians have signed petitions to get the measure on the November ballot.
Until now, GMO foods – primarily soy, corn or beet sugar – have mostly been used in processed food and animal feed, but the U.S. Department of Agriculture is considering approving the sale of genetically modified versions of widely eaten foods such as apples and salmon. Currently, 90 percent of sugar beets and 94 percent of soybeans grown in the U.S., and 88 percent of corn grown for animal feed, are genetically modified.
“Surveys show that more than 90 percent of Californians believe it’s their right to know if genetically engineered ingredients are in the food they eat and feed their kids, and for years now they’ve had no way to find out,” said EWG President Ken Cook. “Who will honor that right? Certainly not the global pesticide companies that produce the genetically engineered ingredients that ends up in our food, and definitely not big multinational food companies. In this instance, they’re saying the customer is not always right. In fact, Big Food has already announced that defeating California’s Proposition 37 is their top priority,” Cook said.
“I’m very sorry to say that President Obama has not acted to respect this basic right either, despite promising to do so on the campaign trail in 2008. A President Romney? Forget it. The current majority in Congress certainly won’t recognize this right, and as for Sacramento…we have our doubts,” added Cook, a California resident. “The only way Californians will win the right to know about genetically modified ingredients in our food is to claim it in the voting booth, and that’s why EWG is in this fight.”
EWG has joined with a large and diverse coalition – including environmental, public health, food safety and agricultural organizations along with food producers, labor federations and Tea Party-affiliated groups – that believe consumers have a right to know what is in their food.
Cook and other EWG staff will be traveling throughout the state speaking out in favor of Proposition 37 in the run-up to election day and will be calling on the 150,000 EWG supporters in the state to join the fight and bring some friends.
“It is absolutely unacceptable to keep consumers in the dark,” said EWG Senior Analyst Kari Hamerschlag in EWG’s Oakland office. “Passage of Proposition 37 is essential for not only the people in California but for all eaters across the country who’d like to know what’s in the food they and their families eat.”
“The fact that in just a few months nearly a million people in California signed a petition asking to put their right to know on the ballot is a sign of the overwhelming public support for this issue in the state,” Hamerschlag added.

###

The mission of the Environmental Working Group (EWG) is to use the power of public information to protect public health and the environment. EWG is a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization, founded in 1993 by Ken Cook and Richard Wiles.

Source: http://www.commondreams.org/newswire/2012/08/10-3

Friday, August 10, 2012

FRACK AND WE CAN FORGET ABOUT LUXURIES LIKE - YOU KNOW, EATING, FOR EXAMPLE

New Groundwater Study Exposes Deep Folly of Fracking

by Wenonah Hauter
Published on Friday, August 10, 2012 by Common Dreams

Nothing shows the dangerous connection between drought and fracking more than the study released by the journal Nature this week, which shows groundwater demand is exceeding supply, particularly in agricultural zones. Not only is the oil and gas industry turning our rural areas into sacrifice zones, it is also diverting water that is needed to grow food.

Drilling and fracking is not only a threat to water quality — it also uses massive amounts of water, removing much of the water used from the water cycle altogether.

Unbelievably, even during horrendous drought conditions, oil and gas companies are able to continue using our freshwater resources while communities pay for pricy technologies like water reclamation plants, as we see in Big Spring, Texas. And in Colorado, farmers are competing with the oil and gas industry, who are driving up prices at water auctions.

Fracking is not only a problem for consumers and farmers in the United States. France and Bulgaria have banned fracking thanks to the risks to water and agricultural areas. More communities, from South Africa to Australia, are fighting it as well. On September 22, these communities will join together for a global day of action to tell decision makers around the world that fracking should be banned. We can’t sacrifice our public health, our environment and communities, and there is no replacement for our diminishing water resources.

Wenonah Hauter is the executive director of the consumer advocacy group Food & Water Watch. She has worked extensively on energy, food, water and environmental issues at the national, state and local level. Experienced in developing policy positions and legislative strategies, she is also a skilled and accomplished organizer, having lobbied and developed grassroots field strategy and action plans.
Source: http://www.commondreams.org/view/2012/08/10-3

WHY ARE "BIG 6" PESTICIDE MAKERS BOATLOADING $ TO KILL CA. PROP 37 LABEL GMO BILL?

Big 6 pesticide corps want your vote

Thu, 2012-08-02 19:51

Pesticide Actio...

Campaign disclosures released this week reaffirm one thing: pesticide and GE seed companies are very focused on defeating Prop 37, the California Right to Know Genetically Engineered Food Act.

In fact, a giant food lobby — which includes Monsanto as a member — has declared that crushing the GE labeling ballot initiative is its "single highest priority" this fall.

Behind front groups and paid consultants, the “Big 6” pesticide makers (BASF, Bayer, Dow, Dupont, Monsanto and Syngenta) have quietly pumped hundreds of thousands of dollars into the effort to kill GE labeling, according to filings released by California’s Secretary of State. These corporations have helped garner over $1 million from several industry groups since January — most importantly the Council for Biotechnology Information — whose membership is (drum roll)...only the Big 6.

And industry opposition doesn’t just impact Californians. Several states considered passing their own laws earlier this year, only to see them quashed for fear of legal reprisal from Monsanto. Efforts to institute federal labeling standards have been similarly stymied.

It’s no surprise that industry is fighting back hard. "The Big 6 chemical and seed companies are working diligently to monopolize the food system at the expense of consumers, farmers and smaller seed companies," said Philip H. Howard, an associate professor at Michigan State University and an expert on industry consolidation.

And Californians are already feeling the opposition to Proposition 37, with the election less than four months away. The Big 6 and their front groups have started circulating a series of aggressive paid mailings, are lobbying political officials and have launched a concerted public relations offensive.

Pesticide industry’s business model at stake

For too long, pesticide and GE seed corporations have exerted undue influence on our food system while making promises on which they fail to deliver. With up to 80% of non-organic food on grocery store shelves containing GE ingredients, the Big 6 aim to keep us in the dark as their profit margins soar.

As the primary corporations controling the world’s pesticide and seed markets, they enjoy the profits of a virtual monoply. They continue to produce seeds that require more and more pesticide use — ensuring they have a continued market for their products.

As a result, over 85% of the corn and soy in the U.S. — and half of the corn and cotton in California — is genetically engineered to produce its own pesticide or withstand increasing amounts of weedkillers. The increased use of pesticides in agricultural fields puts rural communities and farmworkers at the greatest risk of health harms due to pesticide exposure.

“After over 15 years of commercialization, and millions of dollars in publicly funded research, Big Ag has yet to deliver on the benefits it has long promised farmers and consumers. Their costly seeds are designed to require more pesticide use, not less,” said PAN’s senior scientist Dr. Marcia Ishii-Eiteman.

Source: http://www.panna.org/blog/big-6-pesticide-corps-want-your-vote

AUGUST 10TH - WORLDWIDE AGENT ORANGE DAY - (DEJA VU ALL OVER AGAIN -NOW BEING SPRAYED ON FOOD CROPS IN THE USA)

US to Begin Part of Agent Orange Cleanup in Vietnam

Effort starts five decades after US unleashed warfare by toxic defoliant

- Common Dreams staff
Published on Thursday, August 9, 2012 by Common Dreams

Fifty-one years after beginning a ten-year campaign of spraying Agent Orange in Vietnam, the U.S. announced Thursday it will begin a cleanup for the first time of just one of the 28 "hotspots" where the Dow- and Monsanto-made toxic chemical was stored.

U.S. Huey helicopter spraying Agent Orange over Vietnam Voice of America reports that the four-year cleanup at a former U.S. airbase in Danang involves "73,000 cubic meters of affected soil and heating it to a high temperature to burn off leftover dioxin."

Up to 12 million gallons of the toxic defoliant was sprayed affecting millions of people and about 5 million acres of forest. It left a cruel, ongoing legacy of birth defects, cancer and other diseases for both Vietnamese and U.S. soldiers (2-4D, a component of Agent Orange is being sprayed on USA food crops after Round-Up - glyphosate - herbicide formerly used was rendered ineffective by weed resistance. This means much, much more spray, of much much deadlier herbicide.....ON OUR FOOD-LAND-WATER-AIR! -Clean Food Earth Woman)

For millions of Vietnamese, the cleanup effort is too little, too late.

Marjorie Cohn and Jeanne Mirer write:

For the past 51 years, the Vietnamese people have been attempting to address this legacy of war by trying to get the United States and the chemical companies to accept responsibility for this ongoing nightmare. An unsuccessful legal action by Vietnamese victims of Agent Orange against the chemical companies in U.S. federal court, begun in 2004, has nonetheless spawned a movement to hold the United States accountable for using such dangerous chemicals on civilian populations. The movement has resulted in pending legislation HR 2634 – The Victims of Agent Orange Relief Act of 2011, which attempts to provide medical, rehabilitative and social service compensation to the Vietnamese victims of Agent Orange, remediation of dioxin-contaminated “hot spots,” and medical services for the children and grandchildren of U. S. Vietnam veterans and Vietnamese-Americans who have been born with the same diseases and deformities.

Susan Schnall, a member of the Vietnam Agent Orange Relief and Responsibility Campaign, a project of Veterans For Peace, urges action on HR 2634:

"It's been 51 years since the beginning of the spraying, and the first of 28 hot spots is now being dealt with. Hot spots are the areas where the United States had military bases and left behind Agent Orange dioxin which remains in the land. August 10th is Worldwide Agent Orange Day, marking 51 years since the spraying started. So it's very appropriate that the cleanup is beginning now. To ensure that the United States continue this process with the remaining 27 hot spots, we're asking people to support legislation that would clean up all 28 hot spots: the Victims of Agent Orange Relief Act of 2011 (HR 2634). People can go to our website http://vn-agentorange.org and sign orange cards in support. This legislation also would provide services to the children of both Vietnamese and Americans who are suffering by the millions from the use of Agent Orange in Vietnam a half-century ago. This is a reminder to the government and to the people of the United States that war causes untold suffering that continues with succeeding generations."

Source: http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2012/08/09-4

Thursday, August 9, 2012

HONOR THE GIFT OF FOOD - THE FOUR DIRECTIONS

Looking back to see ahead: One woman’s quest to bring back Native American food traditions

By Claire Thompson

Valerie Segrest.

Valerie Segrest often encounters people who want her to tell them what to eat. Instead, this native foods educator and registered member of Washington state’s Muckleshoot Indian Tribe says she works to “help people see the wealth of knowledge they come from, and use that to make healthier choices.” It’s a doubly empowering way to reconnect with cultural traditions and change food habits at the same time.

When it comes to the diet-related health problems in native communities, Segrest says, “you could take America and put it under a microscope. That’s what’s happening on every reservation.” In other words, diabetes rates are high, and access to healthy food — not to mention traditional foods — can be dicey at best.

The answer, Segrest believes, is a move toward the traditional foodways that have slipped away from “a culture now consuming a diet that is very superimposed.”

Segrest teaches a course at Northwest Indian College called “Honor the Gift of Food,” which approaches healthy eating through eight traditional food principles — ancient concepts that will be familiar to those who have heard them reincarnated as foodie gospel: eat locally and seasonally; eat organic, whole foods; honor the food web/chain; and, my favorite, “cook and eat with good intention”:

Reflect on what you consume, as well as how you consume your meals. Eating is a reminder that we are human … The way we eat is just as important as what we eat. We are frequently eating while on the go and hurrying on to the next task. This takes the pleasure out of eating our food, and it does not allow sufficient time for our body to relax enough to savor and digest, leaving us hungry for more.

Eating with intention also involves rethinking some of the ethnocentric diet mantras drilled into us as Americans — for instance, the idea that fat is anathema to good health. “In the Northwest, traditional Coast Salish families would eat a lot of fat,” Segrest explains. “It makes sense because the landscape here is rich with fish and shellfish.” In her classes, Segrest differentiates between the healthy fats that once made up close to half of Coast Salish people’s daily nutrient intake, and the hydrogenated oils and trans fats prevalent in the “superimposed” diet they consume now.

Segrest’s class explores practical ways to put traditional food principles in a modern context, asking “How do I grocery shop with my ancestors?” For instance, she explains, elk meat could be used in lasagna instead of beef. The camas bulb, a traditional prairie plant and native food staple, is hard to come by now that so many of our prairies have disappeared, but white beans make a good alternative.

Whatever your cultural background, this can be a more effective, and often simpler, approach to healthy eating than trying to parse the complex language of carbs, calories, and nutrition science. Across the board, our ancestors generally ate better than we do, since they lived before the advent of mass-market processed food.

In addition to teaching, Segrest has co-authored a book called Feeding the People, Feeding the Spirit: Revitalizing Northwest Coastal Indian Food Culture, and coordinates the broader Muckleshoot Food Sovereignty Project, which incorporates educational and food-producing gardens, hands-on workshops like a traditional technology series on fishing and hunting, articles in the tribal newspaper, and traditional foods feasts. She is also a Food and Community fellow at the Institute of Agriculture and Trade Policy.

Segrest feels excited about the acceleration of the good food movement, but points out that its focus on small farms and ranches often leaves out native traditions. “We’re hunters and fishers,” she says. “This new food system we’re trying to build — its abundance and its scarcity depend on how we honor the old-world knowledge of this land. If we want to create diverse diets we have to look at what was grown here pre-contact.”

Changing her community’s relationship to food, Segrest says, means practicing “a way of living that presses us to look back.”

Source: http://grist.org/food/looking-back-to-see-ahead-one-womans-quest-to-bring-back-native-american-food-traditions/

WATER, WATER, WATER EVERYWHERE....NO SO MUCH

Worldwide Demand for Water Outstrips Supply: Study

Groundwater use is unsustainable in many of the world's major agricultural zones

- Common Dreams staff Published on Thursday, August 9, 2012 by Common Dreams

Degree to which aquifers important for farming are under stress. (Gleeson, T. et al.)Almost one-quarter of the world’s population lives in regions where groundwater is being used up faster than it can be replenished, concludes a comprehensive global analysis of groundwater depletion, published this week in Nature.

The world's oldest and largest acquifers, according to the study, have supplied civilization with water for agricultural and industrial use for thousands of years, but are now under threat from over-extraction and the underground reservoirs can no longer replenish themselves at a sustainable rate.

“This overuse can lead to decreased groundwater availability for both drinking water and growing food,” says Tom Gleeson, a hydrogeologist at McGill University in Montreal, Quebec, and lead author of the study. Eventually, he adds, it “can lead to dried up streams and ecological impacts”.

Gleeson said irrigation for agriculture drives much of the demand and is the main driver for the fragility of the acquifers. According to the study, India, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Mexico, and the United States lead the global pack of water-thirsty nations.

The researchers, from McGill University in Montreal and Utrecht University in the Netherlands, combined groundwater usage data from around the globe with computer models of underground water resources to come up with a measure of water usage relative to supply.

In addition, the scientists calculated how much stress each source of groundwater is under and looked in detail at the water flows needed to sustain the health of ecosystems such as grasses, trees and streams.

“To my knowledge, this is the first water-stress index that actually accounts for preserving the health of the environment,” says Jay Famiglietti, a hydrologist at the University of California, Irvine, who was not involved in the study. “That’s a critical step.”

According to Reuters, "Gleeson said limits on water extraction, more efficient irrigation and the promotion of different diets, with less or no meat, could make these water resources more sustainable."

SOURCE: http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2012/08/09

"VERY SICK" FOOD SYSTEM - GOES GLOBAL

UN Warns of 'Food Crisis' as Prices Continue Surge

Oxfam calls global food system "very sick" following latest numbers

- Common Dreams staff

Published on Thursday, August 9, 2012 by Common Dreams

A sharp increase of food prices on the international market, mostly driven by a surge in grain and sugar prices, has spurred the UN's Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO) to issue a warning that a food crisis similar to the one experience in 2008 could be on the horizon if proper action is not taken.

A man looks at food at Khartoum's central food market July 18, 2012. (Credit: Reuters/ Mohamed Nureldin Abdallah) The FAO Food Price Index climbed 6 percent in July 2012 after three months of previous decline and indicates that the extreme drought ravaging US croplands and a similar failure in India and elsewhere is having a severe impact food costs.

"There is potential for a situation to develop like we had back in 2007/08," the FAO's senior economist and grain analyst Abdolreza Abbassian told Reuters.

"There is an expectation that this time around we will not pursue bad policies and intervene in the market by restrictions, and if that doesn't happen we will not see such a serious situation as 2007/08. But if those policies get repeated, anything is possible."

Reuters explains that in 2007/08, a "number of major producers imposed various restrictions on exports in an attempt to control domestic prices" and that export bans, quotas, and higher tariffs on rice, corn and wheat caused market reductions which led to soaring prices.

Aid groups met the new FAO numbers with dismay, but not surprise, calling the FAO index numbers a symptom of a 'very sick' global food system.

“This is not some gentle monthly wake-up call," said Colin Roche, a spokesperson for Oxfam International. "It’s the same global alarm that’s been screaming at us since 2008. These new figures prove that the world’s food system cannot cope on crumbling foundations. The combination of rising prices and expected low reserves means the world is facing a double danger."

Roche warned that without action millions more would join the billion people who are already hungry in the world and said that the agricultural policies of the world's wealthiest nations were as much to blame for the impending crisis as anything.

Members of the G-20, said Roche, must "reverse decades of under-investment into small-holder agriculture. The US and EU must ditch their crazy biofuels programs that turn 40% of US corn, for example, into gas for cars and trucks. We must tackle the causes and effects of climate change that will eventually, without action, overwhelm our food system entirely."

"These price hikes are being driven by more than just a drought in the US corn-belt and problem harvests elsewhere. As bad as they are, our food system should be more resilient than this," Roche said.

# # #

Source: http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2012/08/09-0

ORGANIC BABY FOOD'S ADDED PRICE: HINT - IS IT EVEN ORGANIC??

Corporations Sneak Synthetic Preservatives into Organic Food

Organic Watchdog Files Formal Legal Complaint with USDA

WASHINGTON - August 9 - The Cornucopia Institute, a not-for-profit policy research organization based in Wisconsin, filed a formal legal complaint with the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) against several infant formula manufacturers that are adding two synthetic preservatives to certified organic infant formula.
The Organic Foods Production Act, passed by Congress in 1990, explicitly bans synthetic preservatives in organic food.
“This is another blatant violation of the federal law governing organics by multi-billion dollar corporations that apparently think they can get away with anything,” says Charlotte Vallaeys, Director of Farm and Food Policy at The Cornucopia Institute.
The preservatives are beta carotene and ascorbyl palmitate, synthetics that are added to infant formula to prevent the oxidation and rancidity of ingredients such as the controversial patented supplements DHA and ARA, manufactured by Martek Biosciences Corporation (Royal DSM) and marketed as Life'sDHA®.
“This is not the first time that the pharmaceutical companies and agribusinesses, that manufacture infant formula, have quietly added to organic formula the same synthetic ingredients that they use in their conventional versions without first seeking the legally required approval for use in organics,” says Vallaeys.
According to The Cornucopia Institute, there have been more than a dozen unapproved synthetic ingredients that have been added to organic infant formula over the past five years. The public interest group has filed numerous legal complaints with the USDA, asking for removal of unapproved synthetic ingredients like the DHA algal oil and ARA fungal oils, manufactured by Martek, which was recently acquired by the Dutch conglomerate Royal DSM.
While the USDA has admitted publicly that these synthetics were added to organics due to an erroneous interpretation by previous USDA leadership, the agency, after being pressured by industry, has refused to take enforcement action and pull the suspect products from store shelves.
The DSM/Martek DHA and ARA oils, labeled on infant formula as “c. cohnii oil” and “m. alpina oil,” have been controversial since the preponderance of scientific published research concluded that they do not benefit infant development. “These ingredients, which now appear to require additional synthetics as preservatives, amount to a gimmicky and risky marketing ploy,” added Vallaeys.
When formula with Life'sDHA® first came on the market, the FDA received numerous adverse reaction reports from parents and healthcare providers who noted serious gastrointestinal symptoms in babies who had previously tolerated formula without the Martek DHA and ARA oils.
Synthetic beta carotene and ascorbyl palmitate, according to the International Formula Council (the industry’s trade-lobby group), contribute no nutritional value to infant formula, but rather serve to prevent oxidation and rancidity.
Organic standards require that a synthetic ingredient cannot qualify for use in organic foods if its primary purpose is as a preservative. The International Formula Council, which is now petitioning the USDA to legalize the use of these synthetic materials in organics, never uses the word "preservative" to describe synthetic beta carotene and ascorbyl palmitate. They instead use terms like “antioxidant” to “prevent undesirable oxidation” and “prevent rancidity” in “powder formulations containing DHA and ARA.”
The federal organic standards also require that synthetics be allowed in organic foods only if they are deemed essential.
“The only reason why these two synthetic preservatives are added to infant formula is to prevent the rancidity of some of the other synthetic ingredients that are not essential and have also been added illegally,” says Vallaeys. “This is a slippery slope, and we urge the USDA to take appropriate enforcement action and put an end to the practice of first adding synthetic additives to organic food, including infant formula, and then seeking subsequent approval.”
In its complaint, Cornucopia also asked the USDA to investigate the formula manufacturers’ organic certifying agent, Quality Assurance International (QAI). QAI is one of the largest organic certifying agents, and has come under fire in the past for certifying organic livestock operations that failed to meet the organic standards for animal welfare and outdoor access. QAI has also allowed its clients to add a number of other allegedly illegal synthetic ingredients to organic food and livestock feed.
The Cornucopia Institute refers to QAI as, "the corporate certifier of convenience."
“Consumers should be able to trust that the organic label represents foods that are free from unnecessary synthetic ingredients, and they rely on third-party certification by USDA-accredited certifying agents,” says Mark Kastel, Codirector of The Cornucopia Institute.
“But that system breaks down when certifiers like QAI allow their clients to add unreviewed and unapproved synthetic ingredients and when the USDA, when faced with industry pressure, fails to carry out its enforcement duties.”
MORE:
A buyer’s guide to avoiding organic foods with DAM/Martek’s DHA algal oil and ARA fungal oil, including foods aimed at adults and children, like Horizon milk (manufactured by Dean Foods), is available on The Cornucopia Institute’s website.
The Cornucopia Institute named the following brands of organic infant formula in its complaint to the USDA: Earth’s Best, Similac Organic, Vermont Organics, Bright Beginnings and Parent’s Choice (sold by Walmart).
Similac Organic is produced by Abbott Laboratories, a $30 billion pharmaceutical corporation. The other brands are produced by PBM Nutritionals, owned by Perrigo, a $2 billion dollar pharmaceutical corporation.
The only commercially available baby formula available in US stores that does not contain these synthetic preservatives is Baby’s Only Organic, manufactured by Nature’s One. Baby’s Only Organic is certified organic by OneCert.
A comprehensive report, Replacing Mother—Imitating Human Breast Milk in the Laboratory, is also available on the Cornucopia site.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
August 9, 2012
9:19 AM

CONTACT: Cornucopia Institute

Mark Kastel, 608-625-2042

###

The Cornucopia Institute, a Wisconsin-based nonprofit farm policy research group, is dedicated to the fight for economic justice for the family-scale farming community. Their Organic Integrity Project acts as a corporate and governmental watchdog assuring that no compromises to the credibility of organic farming methods and the food it produces are made in the pursuit of profit. Their web page can be viewed at www.cornucopia.org.

Clean Food Earth