Saturday, August 18, 2012

WHAT BIG AG IS SPENDING $25 MILLION TO KEEP US FROM KNOWING - COULD KILL MORE THAN A BILL


IF GMO "FOOD" IS SO SAFE, WHO'S SPENDING $25 MILLION TO FIGHT LABELING IT?

Hi Eaters!
There's a huge buzz nationally about our food supply....and most of the story, when it comes to the big suppliers, is looking grim for eaters....like you and me. In the 2012 Farm bill, GMO corporation, Monsanto is pushing for exemptions on Clean Air, Clean Water and environmental law, in addition to a huge push to get hundreds more untested, unregulated GMO crops fast-tracked to the fields.
Thank heavens for those of us who understand and revere the crucial importance of protecting our food supply; that food is our medicine, and our medicine, our food...CSA's (community supported agriculture), Community and School Gardens, Farm-to-School initiatives, Farmers Markets and Edible Lawns are the growing rage around the nation. This is brilliant and wonderful!
But there is a gigantic push with over $25 MILLION from "The BIG 6," Giant Agri-Biz and Grocery Store Chains to fight California Proposition 37 The RIGHT TO KNOW IF IT'S GMO (genetically modified organism) LABELING INITIATIVE, to keep us all in the dark about what is really in the bags, bottles, boxes and cans that riddle our grocery shelves today. (see accompanying PDF to see the shocking list of which Food Providers wnat us to know and which have spent a ton to keep us from knowing what is and is not GMO in or foods)
A groundbreaking new documentary film about genetically modified/genetically engineered (GMO or GE) food has just been released that is a must see!
Please have a look at this trailer...it is a new documentary film on
GMO's -  GENETIC ROULETTE, by JEFFREY SMITH
, that I helped
do research on over the last few months. This may be one of the most
important films on our food supply that, we hope, will compel the passage
of the CALIFORNIA PROPOSITION 37 RIGHT TO KNOW - GMO LABELING
INITIATIVE
, up for vote in November's National Elections.
Passage
means ALL GMO INGREDIENTS MUST BE LABELED FOR ANY FOOD
SOLD IN CALIFORNIA (THE WAY 40 OTHER NATIONS ALREADY DO).

  • If we pass Prop 37 Right To Know in California, do you think they
    will have different food labels for the rest of the nation?
  • If they pass this in California, do you think people will buy GMO-labeled
    foods or foods FREE of GMO ingredients?
  • Do you agree with 90% of our nation's eaters that we have the RIGHT TO
    KNOW IF what we eat IS GMO?
FILM: Genetic Roulette, The Gamble of our Lives- by Jeffrey Smith, Institute for Responsible Technology
Watch the trailer    Order the film   
Visit the movie website: GeneticRouletteMovie.com

Please watch and order for your local libraries, schools, gifts, and any
other way you can think of to get this message to anyone and everyone
you know who eats food. As goes California, So Goes The Nation!
Posted on August 18, 2012 at 2:12 pm

http://cleanfoodearth.blogspot.com

http://southampton.patch.com/users/kathleen-furey/blog_posts 
Hey, We've All Gotta Eat!

Friday, August 17, 2012

THE SHOCKING LIST: CORPORATIONS SPENDING MILLIONS FIGHTING AGAINST OUR RIGHT TO LABEL GMO "FOOD"

THE NATURAL BRANDS JUST AIN'T WHAT THEY USED TO BE (OR EVER WERE?). 
MEET the BIG 6 - and more - HOT LIST:
Here are your top Frankencorporation SHILLS - FIGHTING with over $23 Million TO KILL CALIFORNIA PROP 37- RIGHT TO KNOW if it's GMO (genetically modified organisms, or genetically engineered) "FOOD."


Download a PDF Version
Democratic and Republican administrations, and Congress, have repeatedly ignored the overwhelming majority of Americans who favor labeling genetically engineered (GE) food in the marketplace. Our politicians seem to be listening to the corporate executives (donors) instead of the citizenry. But in California, the people have a right to craft laws of their choosing. Proposition 37, on the ballot in California on November 6, would mandate labeling of foods containing GE ingredients. If we win this fight in California, manufacturers will likely begin to label food nationally for GE ingredients.

Please make your voice heard by signing the petition
:
  • Tell the corporate players opposing your right to know what’s in your food that if they want your business, they can’t sell-out organic values.
  • Thank independent organic business that have put their money where their mouth is.
  • Ask large organic brands/companies that are missing in action to pony up. Talk is cheap.
We will send your statement along with thousands of others to organic corporate and cooperative executives. They will listen to the most powerful authority in organics — the consumers. You hold the purse strings!
Sign Petition
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.  Its 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.

YES on CA PROP 37 - LABEL GMO'S NOW! VOTE WITH YOUR FORK!

Dear Clean Food Earthies,

Let’s be absolutely clear.
The most important thing in the world of GMOs is the
Matching donation will support California’s GMO labeling Prop 37 Campaign
Donate to - Institute for Responsible Technology - Tax deductible
Donate to - IRT’s Food Policy Fund  Not tax deductible
California Prop 37 campaign for mandatory labeling. It may be the most important opportunity in the history of our GMO activism. Why?

We are already seeing strong signs of a tipping point of consumer rejection against GMOs in the US. Labeling GMOs could push it over the edge. In fact we’ve already heard that some industry folks say that if Prop 37 passes, they would rather remove genetically engineered ingredients than admit they use them. I think that’s a great idea. After all, most Americans say they would avoid GMOs if labeled. Furthermore, GMOs offer no consumer benefit.

And companies are NOT going to create a separate label and product just for California. Everyone in America could benefit from a flood of healthier non-GMO choices. But it gets better.

If labeling and consumer education about health risks inspires US food companies to stop using GM ingredients here—like they already have in Europe—my hope is that the two-decades-long love affair between Monsanto and Washington, D.C. will take a big hit. And that could shake the world. Up till now, the US government has bullied other nations into accepting useless and dangerous GMOs. But rejection of GM foods by US consumers and food companies could change all that.

Without US pressure, the world might finally be ready to admit that the technology has failed to live up to its promises, is fraught with dangerous side effects, and needs to be withdrawn. So this vote could be the fast-track to a healthier food supply for everyone.

No wonder Monsanto just added $4.2 million to the $20 million fund that will be used to try to trick Californians into voting against their own self-interest. We must all do our part to make sure they don’t succeed.

Please dig deep and give what you can. This is absolutely critical.


For every tax-deductible dollar donated to the Institute for Responsible Technology (IRT) for general GMO education in California, Mercola.com will donate a dollar directly to the California Right to Know campaign. Or, if you don’t need a tax deduction, you can contribute to our political campaign organization, IRT’s Food Policy Fund, and it will also be matched by Mercola.com.

Donate Now

In a coming email, we’ll share more details about our strategy in California, which we’ve kept private. But know that it’s been our number one priority for a year. And for very good reasons.

Together we can help pass Prop 37 this November!

Sincerely,
Jeffrey M. Smith
And Institute for Responsible Technology Food Policy Fund Staff

Thursday, August 16, 2012

WILD FISH AT DANGEROUSLY OVERFISHED LEVEL - FISH FARMING IS NOT THE ANSWER


FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
August 16, 2012
11:36 AM
CONTACT: Worldwatch Institute
Julia Tier
jtier@worldwatch.org
+1 202.452.1999 x594

Aquaculture Feeding World's Insatiable Appetite for Seafood

New Worldwatch Institute report discusses the rise in aquaculture production and seafood consumption and their impact on the environment

WASHINGTON - August 16, 2012 - Total global fish production, including both wild capture fish and aquaculture, reached an all-time high of 154 million tons in 2011, and aquaculture is set to top 60 percent of production by 2020, according to new research conducted by the Worldwatch Institute (www.worldwatch.org) for its Vital Signs Online service. Wild capture was 90.4 million tons in 2011, up 2 percent from 2010. Aquaculture, in contrast, has been expanding steadily for the last 25 years and saw a rise of 6.2 percent in 2011, write report authors Danielle Nierenberg and Katie Spoden.
"Growth in fish farming can be a double-edged sword," said Nierenberg, co-author of the report and Director of Worldwatch's Nourishing the Planet project. "Despite its potential to affordably feed an ever-growing global population, it can also contribute to problems of habitat destruction, waste disposal, invasions of exotic species and pathogens, and depletion of wild fish stock."
Humans ate 130.8 million tons of fish in 2011. The remaining 23.2 million tons of fish went to non-food uses such as fishmeal, fish oil, culture, bait, and pharmaceuticals. The human consumption figure has increased 14.4 percent over the last five years. And consumption of farmed fish has risen tenfold since 1970, at an annual average of 6.6 percent per year. Asia consumes two thirds of the fish caught or grown for consumption.
The fish sector is a source of income and sustenance for millions of people worldwide. According to the UN Food and Agriculture Organization, for every one job in the fish sector, three to four additional jobs are produced in secondary activities, such as fish processing, marketing, maintenance of fishing equipment, and other related industries. And on average each person working in the fish sector is financially responsible for three dependents. In combination, then, jobs in the primary and secondary fish sectors support the livelihoods of 660 million to 820 million people----10-12 percent of global population.
Although Africa is only the fourth largest producer of fish in the world, its water resources are highly sought after by larger, more-competitive fishing trawlers. Extreme overfishing occurs when foreign trawlers buy fishing licenses from African countries for marine water use. In West African waters, foreign trawlers pose a threat because factory ships from the United Kingdom, other countries within the European Union, Russia, and Saudi Arabia can outcompete the technologies used by local fishers. In Senegal, for example, a local fisher can catch a few tons of fish each day in the typical 30-foot pirogue. In contrast, factory ships from industrial countries catch hundreds of tons daily in their 10,000-ton factory ships.
Wild fish stocks are at a dangerously unsustainable level. As of 2009 (the most recent year with data), 57.4 percent of fisheries were estimated to be fully exploited----meaning current catches were at or close to their maximum sustainable yield, with no room for further expansion. Of the remaining fisheries in jeopardy, around 30 percent were deemed overexploited, while a little less than 13 percent were considered to be not fully exploited.
A number of government initiatives give some hope to a future of sustainable fishing. In the United States, the Magnuson-Stevens Act mandated that overfished stocks be restored; as of 2012, two-thirds of U.S. stocks are fished sustainably and only 17 percent are fished at overexploited levels. In New Zealand, 69 percent of stocks are above management targets, but Australia only reports 12 percent of stocks at overexploitation levels due to increased government fishery standards.
To maintain the current level of fish consumption in the world, aquaculture will need to provide an additional 23 million tons of farmed fish by 2020. To produce this additional amount, fish farming will also have to provide the necessary feed to grow the omnivorous and carnivorous fish that people want. Aquaculture is being pressured to provide both food and feed because of the oceans' overexploited fisheries.
Continually increasing fish production, from both aquaculture and fisheries, raises many environmental concerns. If aquaculture continues to grow without constraints, it could lead to degradation of land and marine habitats, chemical pollution from fertilizers and antibiotics, the negative impacts of invasive species, and a lessened fish resistance to disease due to close proximity and intensive farming practices. To prevent these problems, policymakers, fishers, and consumers need to find alternative sources for fish feed, combat illegal fishing, encourage more-sustainable practices in aquaculture, acknowledge the potential effects of climate change on the oceans, and think critically about what and how much fish to consume.
Further highlights from the report:
  • In 2011, inland aquaculture increased 6.2 percent to reach 44.3 million tons, while marine aquaculture increased 6.6 percent, to 19.3 million tons.
  • Fish production rose 6.4 percent in Asia in 2010 (the latest year with regional data), amounting to 121.3 million tons. In 2010, Europe, a distant second, produced 9.7 percent (16.4 million tons) of the global fish supply.
  • In 2010, some 54.8 million people were directly engaged full-time or part-time in capture fisheries or aquaculture.
###
The Worldwatch Institute is an independent research organization recognized by opinion leaders around the world for its accessible, fact-based analysis of critical global issues. Its mission is to generate and promote insights and ideas that empower decision makers to build an ecologically sustainable society that meets human needs. 

SCARCE RESOURCES EQUALS MASSIVE WALL STREET ( AFRICAN LAND GRAB) PROFITS



Wall Street’s Frightening and Predatory Land Grab in Africa

Wall Street is at again.(Africa landscape photo: Creative Commons/Greg Wilis)
The nation’s financial sector is on a crusade to dominate an irreplaceable African resource that the world increasingly needs: massive tracts of open land available for large scale industrial farming. The pace of land purchases is flying so furiously that it is now commonly referred to as “a land grab.”
It’s the latest phase in Wall Street’s never-ending quest for profits at-any-cost, but this time the focus of finance’s predatory gaze is the world’s poorest region. The reason is simple: There’s an ocean of money to be made by doing so.
The potential riches stem from the fact that the world needs more food. For Wall Street, scarce resources translate into massive profits, and U.S. financial firms are at the head of the pack to make them.
Global population growth, the rise of middle class diets in fast-developing economies, especially China and India, and falling crop yields due to climate change mean that the planet is in a scramble to increase agricultural output. This year’s drought highlights the problem.
Most of the land available to meet this growing demand is in the world’s most distressed regions, especially in Africa and to lesser extent Latin America. Buying, leasing, and selling that land is expected to lead to double-digit returns for investors—the type of returns seen in high-growth, high-tech companies. And financiers all around the world are beating down the door to get their hands on it.
These acquisitions are another example of the way in which the financial system thrives off of inequality, both internationally and here at home.
This should come as no surprise. It’s not the first time that the financial sector has put short-term gains above all else.
Wall Street’s unapologetic avarice during the housing bubble led to the largest erasure of wealth amongst the descendants of Africa and Latin America living in the United States. Due to the housing crisis, the wealth gap between people of color and whites has grown to the widest level ever recorded. The devastating loss in property and prosperity amongst blacks and Latinos is a direct result of Wall Street’s assessment that these communities were ripe for predation.
Now they’re profiting from the mess they created by snapping up distressed properties for profit.
In Africa and around the world, Wall Street banks on inequality.
A Continent for Sale, Yet Again
Oxfam estimates that over the past decade up to 560 million acres of land, equivalent to "an area greater than the size of California, Texas, Arizona, Nevada, New Mexico and Wyoming combined," has changed from local control in the developing world to the hands of global investors. The World Bank says that 112 million acres switched ownership in 2009 alone. Seventy percent of those deals were in sub-Saharan Africa. These deals are occurring in such volume that no part of the continent is immune.
The U.S. is the largest investor. Household names such as Goldman Sachs and JP Morgan all have their fingers in the pie, along with others such as Black Rock asset managers.
The size of individual transactions is huge.
According to a detailed report by non-profit GRAIN, close to a million acres was leased by a New York-based private equity firm from the world’s poorest and newest country, South Sudan. The same report says that a fund controlled by George Soros owns 600,000 acres of land in Brazil, Argentina and Uruguay.
The land grab is not accidental. Conferences, organized by firms like High Quest Partners, are held in New York, Singapore, and London to facilitate deal and capital flow to Africa. High Quest reports that 700 hundred attendees participated its New York gathering alone to get the latest on the land rush.
Most open land in Africa is owned by the government. As national property, millions of Africans presently farm it without owning the land or paying rent.
Weak taxation, caused by lower levels of economic growth and poor governance structures, lead African governments to constantly look for new sources of income to fund their operations. Selling or leasing a national asset, land in this case, is a logical step to raise badly needed cash. Many countries around the world, including the United States, have done it. The Democratic Republic of the Congo, for instance, has offered to lease up to 20 million acres to international investors.
The problem is that deals are done for pennies on the dollar.
The Oakland Institute says that purchase prices can range from as little to $3 to $6 an acre. Leases can be for up to 99 years at $0.75 an acre. Farmland in the U.S. sells for $560 to $12,000 an acre.
Dirt cheap land prices in Africa lead to massive profits on Wall Street. The margins made on these land acquisitions will range between a whopping 20 and 40 percent. This is two to four times above what is considered an amazing return; anything above 10 percent and finance types are gleeful.
Profits are turbocharged because the true costs of converting lands from public use to private, industrial farm purposes is not born by the firms that purchase them.
Environmental degradation from factory farms and increased poverty, caused by the forced removal of millions from native land and into overburdened cities, are among the long-term tolls of Wall Street’s “land grab” that are not paid for by the companies that initiated and benefit from it.
Hundreds of pounds of chemical fertilizer are used in industrial agriculture to increase crop yields on just one acre. Data from Sustainable Table indicates that an industrial hog farm produces up to 200 million pounds of waste per year. Over 700,000 people in Ethiopia are in the process of being moved to make way for just one land deal.
These environmental and human costs will be shouldered by the ecosystems and people who are the victims of them. As with the U.S. housing crisis, costs are socialized and the benefits privatized. This seems to be Wall Street’s formula for making the numbers work.
Given the bargain basement prices and future food demand, buying, holding and cashing out on land in Africa is money in the bank for investors.
Black and Brown America’s ‘For Sale’ Sign
So is the wreckage from the foreclosure mess caused by Wall Street.
Over 9 million property foreclosures flowed from the bursting of the housing bubble in 2008, and 3.6 million of these, more than four out of ten, were owned by blacks and Latinos.
Just last month, Wells Fargo settled with the Justice Department on charges that it deliberately steered people of color into toxic subprime loans. These loans set up borrowers, whom loan agents referred to as “mud people,” for failure.
As a result of the foreclosure process that followed, millions of properties have been transferred from black and brown individuals to banks, hedge funds, and other financial institutions, which are turning them around at a profit.
Property is the number one way that people of color build wealth. Blacks and Latinos hold fewer stocks, bonds and other financial assets. Consequently, rising property values is an even more important source for net gains in those communities over time. The $7 trillion in home real estate values that has been erased since the 2008 crisis are felt disproportionately on the balance sheets of blacks and Latinos.
A generation will likely pass before hard hit communities recover what was lost. But banks and hedge funds, including those grabbing land in Africa and Latin America, stand to profit from the mess they created.
All over the world, Wall Street is at work to separate millions of people from their property at a dizzying pace. Delivering returns to their shareholders means doing whatever is necessary to the rest of the population in order to achieve them.
Once bearish Goldman Sachs is now bullish on the U.S. housing market. Since late last year, financial institutions have started to buy distressed properties. Forbes reports in that just in the last 10 days a $1 billion fund was created to snap up foreclosed houses, apartments and condos to transform them into rentals.
Due to the actions of Goldman Sachs and others which precipitated the current crisis, millions of former black and brown home owners now need those rentals. In fact, demand for rental properties is at all time high. In some markets, like New York City and San Francisco, rents have soared to pre-crisis levels.
Americans have lost at every stage of the sub-prime process, but the financial sector gains. No matter where or who—Africa, Latin America, or amongst African Americans or Latinos in the United States—Wall Street manages to prosper from inequity and wrongdoing.
No one has held them account for it yet. Just last week, the Justice Department declared that it wouldn’t prosecute Goldman Sachs for its role in the subprime mess. In response to a recent question over whether Wall Street should answer for its egregious deeds, JP Morgan’s Chair Jamie Dimon shouted, “It’s a free fucking country.” He and his fellow financiers don’t seem to get the distinction between being free and getting off scott-free. For them, they’re one in the same.
“The same financial firms that drove us into a global recession by inflating the real estate bubble through risky financial maneuvers are now doing the same with the world’s food supply,” warned the Oakland Institute’s Executive Director Anuradha Mittal on CNN.
She’s right.
Africa’s and America’s experience with Wall Street shows that predatory behavior not only abounds, but may be endemic to the way the financial sector does business.
The only way to minimize the damage, barring muscular regulation not seen in 40 years, is to cut the banks down to size.
Everyone from the nation’s former chief banker, Paul Volcker; to the Godfather of the nation’s first too-big-to-fail institution, former Citigroup Chair and CEO Sandy Weill, have called for it. Weil recently said that the time had come for the mega-banks to be “split up.” Even President Obama has signaled support for it. But it hasn’t happened yet.
Whatever the reason, the failure to bring the financial sector to heel has global consequences, especially for those that have historically been least able to afford it.
Imara Jones
Imara Jones is New York-based blogger who writes about economic justice, among other issues, for Colorlines.

$25 MILLION SAYS YOU'RE TOO STUPID TO VOTE TO LABELS GMO (GENETICALLY MODIFIED) "FOOD"


The Biotech Goliath Roars: Monsanto’s Gang Dumps $25 Million into NO on 37 Campaign to Label GMOs

Yesterday it was revealed that the biotech industry and Big Ag have already dumped $25 million - $4.2 million from chemical and seed giant Monsanto alone - into the campaign to defeat Proposition 37 in California, the November 6 citizens ballot initiative that will require genetically engineered foods to be labeled and put an end to the deceptive industry practice of marketing GMO-tainted foods as “natural” or “all natural.”

The California Secretary of State just released the latest Who’s Who of donors to the NO on 37 and YES on 37 campaigns. Topping the list of donors to the NO on 37 anti-labeling campaign is Monsanto and the rest of the Biotech agri-toxics gang, aided and abetted by processed food manufacturers and supermarket chains. As of Aug. 15, they’ve raised more than $25 million to keep you from knowing what’s in your food. And of course the November 6 election is still more than two months away. On our side, YES on 37, we’ve raised $2.7 million with several million more in pledges.


Who are the top donors on our side, calling for truthful labels on GMOs? The top two donors are Mercola.com, the nation’s largest network of natural health consumers, and the Organic Consumers Fund (OCF), the allied grassroots lobbying arm of the Organic Consumers Association. Mercola.com has already donated $800,000 to the cause, while the OCF has donated approximately $700,000 so far, almost all of which has come in the form of small donations from organic food consumers. Other large donors to the YES on 37 campaign so far include Nature’s Path, Dr. Bronner’s, Lundberg Family Farms, Eden Foods, and Organic Valley, leading brands in the organic industry.


It’s clear that the NO on 37 folks have a lot at stake – namely, grotesque profits. After Monsanto, the top donor is DuPont Pioneer, at more than $2.4 million. Pepsi/Frito Lay has moved into the no. 3 spot, at more than $1.7 million. In all, nine companies have pitched in more than $1 million each – most of them biotech and pesticide companies, along with Pepsi, Nestle and Coca-Cola.


Total number of major donors so far to the NO on Prop 37 campaign? 45 – all with ties to the biotech, pesticide and Big Food industries. Total number of major donors to the YES campaign? 18 – none with ties to biotech, pesticides or Big Food.


Goliath has indeed roared, but the food fight of our lives has just begun. Goliath has more money, but David, our champion on the battlefield, has truth and grassroots power backing him up. How much more will the Biotech Bullies and Big Ag spend to keep voters in the dark about chemical and energy intensive GMO food? Please stay tuned from now until Nov. 6. We’ll keep you informed and motivated to join OCA, OCF, and our allies in this historic battle that will determine the future of food and farming, not only in North America, but across the world.
 
 
 

What Does $25 Million Buy? Support for the OCA and the OCF!

Twenty-five million dollars. That’s how much opponents of California’s Prop 37, have raised so far. Monsanto alone has kicked in $4.2 million. It’s a sign of just how desperate these companies are to defeat mandatory GMO labeling laws – and how grotesquely profitable it is for them to keep you in the dark about what’s in your food.
What will they buy with that money? Big, fancy TV ads to try to scare voters into thinking that a little label on their food is a dangerous thing?
We don’t need to beat Big Biotech and Big Food in the race to raise money. But we do need to beat them in the court of public opinion and in the voting booths on Nov. 6. And we know how to do that. We and our allies are mobilizing armies of volunteers to leaflet in front of grocery stores all over California, to explain to consumers why they should have the right to know what’s in their food. We’re also recruiting armies of volunteers to phone voters, to tell them why it’s important to vote YES on 37.
We don’t need $25 million dollars this week. But we do need to raise $100,000 as quickly as possible. We have printing costs for leaflets and yard signs and bumper stickers. We have staff costs to coordinate thousands of volunteers and to educate the public via articles, press releases, newsletters, social media, websites, etc.
With your help, we’re going to win this David versus Goliath battle. With the power of grassroots – not corporate – fundraising. If you haven’t pitched in yet for this campaign, we need your help today. If you donated already, please consider donating again. Thank you!
Donate to the Organic Consumers Association (tax-deductible, helps  support our public education work against GMOs and chemical food, and our work on behalf of organic standards, fair trade and sustainable farming)
Donate to the Organic Consumers Fund (non-tax-deductible, but necessary for our legislative efforts in California and other states)
Source:  http://organicconsumersfund.org/

Wednesday, August 15, 2012

AGENT ORANGE ON LEAVE FOR DECADES IN AND AROUND THE PACIFIC - ARE THESE REMNANTS WHAT THEY'LL SPRAY ON OUR "FOOD CROPS?"

Toxic Pacific Rainbow
SUBHEAD: UH agronomists said that on Kauai Agent Orange was effectively combined with Agent Pink, Purple and Blue.

By Kyle Kajihiro on 10 August 2012 for DMZ Hawaii - (http://www.dmzhawaii.org/?p=10621)

Image above: An estimated 49.000 gallons of Agent Orange was shipped to Johnson Island (800 miles from Hawaii) from Okinawa. Note this storage was only a few feet above see level. and a few yards from the shore. Pity the poor forklift operator. Some Agent Orange was left in a Matson container on Kauai for a decade. From original article.
Another horror of war and militarization has lately been on my mind and in the news: Agent Orange. As Beverly Keever revealed years ago “University vulnerable to pitfalls of secret experiments” (March 27, 2005), HawaiÊ»i has the dubious distinction of being one of the places where Agent Orange was developed and tested under the cover of agricultural research. Two UH researchers who were doused by Agent Orange during field tests later developed cancer and tried to sue for compensation. There is also an Agent Orange spill site on KauaÊ»i near the Wailua river.
Oshita and Fraticelli marked their bulldozers with flags to serve as targets and stayed there while the planes swooped down to spray the defoliants. “When the plane came to spray, someone had to guide him,” Oshita told a reporter in a Page 1 report in the campus newspaper, Ka Leo O Hawaii, on Feb. 3, 1986. “We were the ones.”
Testing was done without warning UH employees or the nearby Kapaa community even though in 1962, just months before being assassinated, President Kennedy was told that Agent Orange could cause adverse health effects, U.S. court documents show. And a 1968 test report written by four UH agronomists said that on Kauai Agent Orange, alone or combined with Agent Pink, Purple or Blue, was effective and “obviously may also be lethal.”
When the testing finished in 1968, five 55-gallon steel drums and a dozen gallon cans partially filled with the toxic chemicals were buried on a hilltop overlooking a reservoir. There they remained until the mid-1980s when the Ka Leo reporter’s questions led to their being excavated, supposedly for shipment to a licensed hazardous waste facility. They left behind levels of dioxin in some soil samples of more than five times normal cleanup standards.
The barrels were then placed in a Matson shipping container. There, instead of being shipped out of state as promised, they sat for another decade. Then, in 1997, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the state Department of Health discovered that UH had failed to dispose properly of the hazardous materials and included this infraction along with a Big Island one in a $1.8 million fine against the institution. In April 2000, the barrels were finally shipped out of state.
Oshita and Fraticelli have since died. A year after his Agent Orange work, Oshita was diagnosed with liver dysfunction, bladder cancer, diabetes, chronic hepatitis and a severe skin disease called chloracne. Fraticelli died in April 1981 from lung and kidney cancer; he also had bladder cancer and a brain tumor, court documents indicate.
Today, the AP reported that the U.S. is finally planning to address Agent Orange in Vietnam – “U.S. plan to clean up Agent Orange dioxin ‘better late than never’” (August 9, 2012):
Vo Duoc fights back tears while sharing the news that broke his heart: A few days ago he received test results confirming he and 11 family members have elevated levels of dioxin lingering in their blood.
The family lives in a twostory house near a former U.S. military base in Danang where the defoliant Agent Orange was stored during the Vietnam War, which ended nearly four decades ago. Duoc, 58, sells steel for a living and has diabetes, while his wife battles breast cancer and their daughter has remained childless after suffering repeated miscarriages. For years, Duoc thought the ailments were unrelated, but after seeing the blood tests he now suspects his family unwittingly ingested dioxin from Agent Orange-contaminated fish, vegetables and well water.
Dioxin, a persistent chemical linked to cancer, birth defects and other disabilities, has seeped into Vietnam’s soils and watersheds, creating a lasting war legacy that remains a thorny issue between the former foes. Washington has been slow to respond, but today the United States for the first time will begin cleaning up dioxin from Agent Orange that was stored at the former military base, now part of Danang’s airport.
The article continued:
Over the past five years, Congress has appropriated about $49 million for environmental remediation and about $11 million to help people living with disabilities in Vietnam regardless of cause. Experts have identified three former U.S. air bases – in Danang in central Vietnam and the southern locations of Bien Hoa and Phu Cat – as hotspots where Agent Orange was mixed, stored and loaded onto planes.
The U.S. military dumped some 20 million gallons (75 million liters) of Agent Orange and other herbicides on about a quarter of former South Vietnam between 1962 and 1971.
The defoliant decimated about 5 million acres (2 million hectares) of forest – roughly the size of Massachusetts – and another 500,000 acres (202,000 hectares) of crops.
After years of denying veterans’ medical compensation for Agent Orange contamination, much less the environmental health concerns of Vietnamese people, why the change in tune? One possible explanation is that the U.S. is seeking closer ties with Vietnam (including negotiating the use of ports for U.S. war ships) in order to counter the growing power of China:
Military ties have also strengthened, with Vietnam looking to the U.S. amid rising tensions with China in the disputed South China Sea, which is believed to be rich in oil and gas reserves and is crossed by vital shipping lanes.
Although Washington remains a vocal critic of Vietnam’s human rights record, it also views the country as a key ally in its push to re-engage militarily in the Asia-Pacific region. The U.S. says maintaining peace and freedom of navigation in the sea is in its national interest.
But, the U.S. has not even acknowledged the use or storage of Agent Orange in Okinawa. Jon Mitchell reveals in the Japan Times “25,000 barrels of Agent Orange kept on Okinawa, U.S. Army document says” (August 7, 2012). Those barrels were later shipped to Kalama (Johnston Atoll) 800 miles from O’ahu and once a part of the Hawaiian Kingdom:
During the Vietnam War, 25,000 barrels of Agent Orange were stored on Okinawa, according to a recently uncovered U.S. Army report. The barrels, thought to contain over 5.2 million liters of the toxic defoliant, had been brought to Okinawa from Vietnam before apparently being taken to Johnston Island in the Pacific Ocean, where the U.S. military is known to have incinerated its stocks of Agent Orange in 1977.
The army report is the first time the U.S. military has acknowledged the presence of these chemicals on Okinawa — and it appears to contradict repeated denials from the Pentagon that Agent Orange was ever on the island. The discovery of the report has prompted a group of 10 U.S. veterans, who claim they were sickened by these chemicals on Okinawa, to demand a formal inquiry from the U.S. Senate.
The army report, published in 2003, is titled “An Ecological Assessment of Johnston Atoll.” Outlining the military’s efforts to clean up the tiny island that the U.S. used throughout the Cold War to store and dispose of its stockpiles of biochemical weapons, the report states, “In 1972, the U.S. Air Force brought about 25,000 55-gallon (208 liter) drums of the chemical Herbicide Orange (HO) to Johnston Island that originated from Vietnam and was stored on Okinawa.”
In a companion article “Poisons in the Pacific: Guam, Okinawa and Agent Orange” (August 7, 2012) he describes how the use and storage of Agent Orange on Guam as well as Okinawa has taken a heavy toll on many of the GIs who were exposed to the deadly toxins:
Within days of starting the assignment, Foster developed pustules and boils all over his body that were so severe he bled through his bed linen. Then during the following years he fell ill with a litany of sicknesses, including Parkinson’s and ischemic heart disease, that he believes were caused by the highly toxic herbicides he was ordered to spray. Foster also contends that Agent Orange’s dioxins — long proven to damage successive generations’ health — have also affected his daughter, who had to undergo cancer treatment as a teenager, and his grandchild, who was born with 12 fingers, 12 toes and a heart murmur.
According to Edward Jackson, a sergeant with the 43rd Transportation Squadron assigned to Guam in the early 1970s, these herbicides were a common sight. “Andersen Air Force Base had a huge stockpile of Agent Orange and other herbicides. There were many, many thousands of drums. I used to make trips with them to the navy base for shipment by sea,” Jackson told The Japan Times.
Knowing what we do now about the toxicity of these chemicals, it is easy to imagine that service members handled them wearing protective clothing. But for years the military and manufacturers suppressed the research on their dangers. “They told us Agent Orange was so safe that you could brush your teeth with it,” says Stanton.
Not only did this lackadaisical attitude apply to the usage of these herbicides, it also applied to their disposal. Just like on Okinawa, where veterans have claimed Agent Orange was buried on Hamby Air Field (current-day Chatan Town), Kadena Air Base and Marine Corps Air Station Futenma, former service members on Guam say they engaged in similar practices.
According to Jackson, the barrels of herbicides were sometimes damaged during transit so they were dumped on Andersen Air Force Base. “I would back my truck up to a small cliff that sloped away towards the Pacific Ocean. I personally threw away about 25 drums. Each individual drum was anywhere from almost empty to almost full,” Jackson explains.
In the 1990s, the U.S. government cracked down on such methods, and after conducting environmental tests on the site where Jackson dumped the barrels, that area was found to be so severely polluted that it was listed for urgent cleanup by the Environmental Protection Agency. Across the tiny island, almost 100 similarly tainted sites were identified, including one where dioxin contamination in the soil of 19,000 parts per million (compared to a recognized safe level of 1,000 parts pertrillion) made it one of the most toxic places on the planet. Further alarming residents was the proximity of many of these sites to the Northern Guam Lens, the aquifer that supplies the island with its drinking water.
How did the military rationalize this kind of environmental practice?
The heavy loss of G.I. blood on both islands imbued in many U.S. leaders a sense of entitlement to the hard-won territories. Following the end of World War II, the islands were gradually transformed into two of the most militarized places on the planet — Guam became the “Tip of the Spear” and Okinawa the “Keystone of the Pacific.”
[. . .]
The fates of Guam and Okinawa have been entwined in the Gordian knot of the planned relocation of thousands of U.S. Marines within the Pacific theater. Associate professor Natividad believes that this plan has made Guam’s leaders reluctant to push the Pentagon for full disclosure about its poisoning of the island. “Our former governor was too afraid of making waves with Washington for fear of jeopardizing the realignment. Our current governor is more confident but even if he pressured Washington for an admission, they’d just send him a letter saying that they’ve cleaned up the contaminated sites.”
While it now seems clear that America’s reasons for bringing Agent Orange to Guam and Okinawa were rooted in the Cold War past, Washington’s increasingly implausible refusals to admit to the presence of these toxic substances on either island are tightly interwoven with its 21st century military strategy for the region.
“We veterans have become a political pawn between the U.S. and Japan,” says Jackson, the former air force sergeant. “We’re an army waiting to die.”
What about the Agent Orange, chemical weapons and nuclear waste on Kalama (Johnston Atoll)?
According to “Mr. D.,” a defense industry source knowledgeable about JACADS, speaking on condition of anonymity, a nuke “went off the launch pad and cracked … The missile did not go off, but it cracked the casing, releasing plutonium.” The radioactive area, he said, is “still offlimits via a chain link fence.” In what amounts to the world’s first and largest plutonium mining project, the U.S. is spending $10 million to separate contaminated soil at the atomic atoll.
Plutonium is not the only lethal substance to leak into Johnston. In the 1970s, the U.S. shipped to the atoll millions of gallons of dioxin-contaminated Agent Orange, the birth defect-causing defoliant used in Vietnam. According to Mr. D., “The Agent Orange was stored in 55-gallon drums, which rusted, and the Agent Orange leaked into the soil.” This still-contaminated area is also fenced off. According to Wilkes, the herbicide was finally burned in 1976 on the Vulcanus II incinerator ship, which he calls “notoriously inefficient.” He adds, “Here, to an extreme degree, the U.S. military does anything that is too unpopular, too dangerous and too secret to do elsewhere in the Pacific.”

.
POSTED: 8/11/2012 EDITOR:
THUMBS: 

HERE IT IS, YOUR TOP TEN (AND MORE) KILL THE ( CA. PROP 37 GMO LABELING) BILL - SPENDING LIST

HERE'S WHO IS SPENDING BIG AND THE AMOUNTS BREAKDOWN - AT THIS SITE:
NO ON 37: COALITION AGAINST THE DECEPTIVE FOOD LABELING SCHEME, SPONSORED BY FARMERS AND FOOD PRODUCERS
...TOP BIG AG, BIG CHEM, BIG PHARMA, BIG OIL, BIG GROCERY CORPORATIONS  SPEND MULTI-MILLIONS  TO KEEP AMERICANS FROM KNOWING WHAT IS AND IS NOT GMO (GENETICALLY MODIFIED ORGANISMS) IN THE "FOODS" THEY MARKET OR THE DRUGS AND CHEMICALS THEY MARKET TO MAKE THESE FRANKENFOODS THAT ARE ON UP TO 84% OF USA GROCERY STORE SHELVES.

FOR FULL LIST: http://cal-access.sos.ca.gov/Campaign/Committees/Detail.aspx?id=1344135&session=2011&view=late1


Late and $5000+ Contributions Received

NAME OF CONTRIBUTORCITYSTATE/ZIP
E.I. DUPONT DE NEMOURS & CO.WASHINGTONDC / 20004
ID NUMBEREMPLOYEROCCUPATION


AMOUNTTYPETRANS. DATEFILED DATETRANS #
$1,273,600.00INITIAL8/13/20128/14/20121685113-IDT123

NAME OF CONTRIBUTORCITYSTATE/ZIP
MONSANTO COMPANYSAINT LOUISMO / 63167
ID NUMBEREMPLOYEROCCUPATION


AMOUNTTYPETRANS. DATEFILED DATETRANS #
$4,208,000.00INITIAL8/13/20128/14/20121685113-IDT122

NAME OF CONTRIBUTORCITYSTATE/ZIP
DOW AGROSCIENCES LLCINDIANAPOLISIN / 46268
ID NUMBEREMPLOYEROCCUPATION


AMOUNTTYPETRANS. DATEFILED DATETRANS #
$1,184,800.00INITIAL8/13/20128/14/20121685113-IDT121

NAME OF CONTRIBUTORCITYSTATE/ZIP
BAYER CROPSCIENCERESEARCH TRIANGLE PANC / 27709
ID NUMBEREMPLOYEROCCUPATION


AMOUNTTYPETRANS. DATEFILED DATETRANS #
$554,400.00INITIAL8/13/20128/14/20121685113-IDT120

NAME OF CONTRIBUTORCITYSTATE/ZIP
SYNGENTA CORPORATIONWASHINGTONDC / 20006
ID NUMBEREMPLOYEROCCUPATION


AMOUNTTYPETRANS. DATEFILED DATETRANS #
$260,000.00INITIAL8/13/20128/14/20121685113-IDT119

NAME OF CONTRIBUTORCITYSTATE/ZIP
BASF PLANT SCIENCERESEARCH TRIANGLE PANC / 27709
ID NUMBEREMPLOYEROCCUPATION


AMOUNTTYPETRANS. DATEFILED DATETRANS #
$519,200.00INITIAL8/13/20128/14/20121685113-IDT117

NAME OF CONTRIBUTORCITYSTATE/ZIP
RICH PRODUCTS CORPORATIONBUFFALONY / 14213
ID NUMBEREMPLOYEROCCUPATION


AMOUNTTYPETRANS. DATEFILED DATETRANS #
$160,123.18INITIAL8/13/20128/14/20121685113-IDT116

NAME OF CONTRIBUTORCITYSTATE/ZIP
PINNACLE FOODS GROUP LLCPARSIPPANYNJ / 07054
ID NUMBEREMPLOYEROCCUPATION


AMOUNTTYPETRANS. DATEFILED DATETRANS #
$191,107.80INITIAL8/13/20128/14/20121685113-IDT115

NAME OF CONTRIBUTORCITYSTATE/ZIP
PEPSICO, INC.PURCHASENY / 10577
ID NUMBEREMPLOYEROCCUPATION


AMOUNTTYPETRANS. DATEFILED DATETRANS #
$1,126,079.94INITIAL8/13/20128/14/20121685113-IDT114

NAME OF CONTRIBUTORCITYSTATE/ZIP
OCEAN SPRAY CRANBERRIES, INC.LAKEVILLE-MIDDLEBOROMA / 02349
ID NUMBEREMPLOYEROCCUPATION


AMOUNTTYPETRANS. DATEFILED DATETRANS #
$199,506.32INITIAL8/13/20128/14/20121685113-IDT113

NAME OF CONTRIBUTORCITYSTATE/ZIP
NESTLE USA, INC.GLENDALECA / 91203
ID NUMBEREMPLOYEROCCUPATION


AMOUNTTYPETRANS. DATEFILED DATETRANS #
$607,928.61INITIAL8/13/20128/14/20121685113-IDT112

NAME OF CONTRIBUTORCITYSTATE/ZIP
MORTON SALTCHICAGOIL / 60606
ID NUMBEREMPLOYEROCCUPATION


AMOUNTTYPETRANS. DATEFILED DATETRANS #
$14,879.01INITIAL8/13/20128/14/20121685113-IDT111

NAME OF CONTRIBUTORCITYSTATE/ZIP
MCCORMICK & COMPANY, INC.SPARKSMD / 21152
ID NUMBEREMPLOYEROCCUPATION


AMOUNTTYPETRANS. DATEFILED DATETRANS #
$178,252.37INITIAL8/13/20128/14/20121685113-IDT110

NAME OF CONTRIBUTORCITYSTATE/ZIP
KELLOGG COMPANYBATTLE CREEKMI / 49016
ID NUMBEREMPLOYEROCCUPATION


AMOUNTTYPETRANS. DATEFILED DATETRANS #
$516,952.06INITIAL8/13/20128/14/20121685113-IDT109