MARCH 2 – 4 2013 Dallas Texas: National Summit - Stop the Frack Attack!

Fracking our Farms: A Tale of Five Farming Families

• By Alexis Baden-Mayer
  February 20, 2013          

For related articles and more information, please visit OCA's Environment and Climate Resource Center page.

Author’s note: On Sunday, Feb. 17, I marched with the OCA at the Forward on Climate rally in Washington, D.C. At one point, our banner, “Cook Organic Not the Planet,” caught the eye of a dairy farmer.  He approached. I handed him a flyer and launched into my pitch about how organic agriculture has the power to bring dangerous carbon dioxide levels back down to the safe level of 350 parts-per-million. He nodded politely, then stopped me short with this “If they frack all the farms, there isn’t going to be any organic.” Back home, I sat down at my computer to research farms and fracking. I learned that there’s a growing movement of farmers around the country who are fighting fracking. And I found some stories that should give all of us pause.

Their names are Carol, Steve & Jackie, Susan, Marilyn & Robert, and Christine. They share a bond. Two bonds, actually: They all own, or owned, farms. And those farms, along with their own health and the health of their farm animals, have all been ruined by fracking.

More than 600,000 fracking wells and waste injection sites have popped up across the country, according to ProPublica. The oil and gas industry, along with federal regulators, would have you believe that injecting trillions of gallons of toxic liquid deep into the earth is harmless.

But tell that to Jacki Schilke of North Dakota, who lost two dogs, five cows, chickens – and her health – after 32 oil and gas wells sprouted up within three miles of her ranch. Or Christine Moore, a horse rescuer in Ohio, who sold her farm after a well went up five miles from her farm, creating an oily film on her water and making her too sick to care for her horses.

With hundreds of thousands of fracking wells and waste injection sites in the U.S., it’s likely that our food supply already contains water, plants and animals (meat) contaminated with fracking chemicals. While we hear a lot about drinking water contamination, including people’s water catching on fire straight out of the faucet, that shouldn’t be our only concern. Contaminated crops and farm animals raised for food are also possible avenues for exposing humans to fracking chemicals.

Of course, not all farm animals are destined for the food chain. Those unfortunate enough to live near fracking wells can tell us a lot about the potential danger from fracking chemicals to our own health. Farm animals have the same susceptibility to disease that we have, but because they are exposed continually to air, soil and groundwater, and have more frequent reproductive cycles, they exhibit diseases more quickly, presaging human health problems. A study involving interviews with animal owners who live near gas drilling operations revealed frequent deaths. Animals that survived exhibited health problems including infertility, birth defects and worsening reproductive health in successive breeding seasons. Some animals developed unusual neurological conditions, anorexia, and liver or kidney disease.

What causes those health problems? Among the hundreds of toxic chemicals used in fracking are arsenic, benzene, ethylene glycol (antifreeze), formaldehyde, lead, toluene, Uranium-238. and Radium-226. The American Academy of Pediatrics’ list of common health problems from exposure to fracking chemicals includes autism, asthma, cancer, heart disease, kidney failure, infertility, birth defects, allergies, endocrine diseases and immune system disorders.

Farmers fighting back
Thankfully, many farmers are fighting back.  Here are the tales of five farmers on the front lines of the fracking fight who are heroically sharing their tragic stories with the world in an attempt to expose the lie that natural gas is “cleaner power.”

Carol French, dairy farmer and cofounder of Pennsylvania Landowners Group for Awareness and Solutions (PLGAS). Carol’s Bradford County farm is surrounded by nine gas wells. Earlier this month, Carol posted to the Fracking Hell Facebook group that she had just lost three calves in nine days. “I have heard from other farmers with ‘changed’ water having similar problems,” she wrote. At the September 2012, Shale Gas Outrage protest in Philadelphia, Carol told the crowd how, two weeks after their water changed, her daughter developed a fever and diarrhea that turned to blood. She lost ten pounds in seven days. Watch Carol’s speech.

Steve and Jacki Schilke North Dakota ranchers. There are 32 oil and gas wells within three miles of Steve and Jacki’s 160-acre ranch. Jacki blames the wells for the loss of two dogs, five cows and a number of chickens, as well as the decline of her own health. Her symptoms began a few days after the wells were fracked, when a burning feeling in her lungs sent her to the emergency room. After that, whenever she went outside she became lightheaded, dizzy and had trouble breathing. At times, the otherwise fit 53-year-old, can’t walk without a cane, drive or breathe easily. She warns landowners against making deals with frackers: “They're here to rape this land, make as much money as they can and get the hell out of here. They could give a crap less what they are doing here. They will come on your property look you straight in the eye and lie to you.” Watch Jacki talk about her experience.

Susan Wallace-Babb, Colorado rancher. One day in 2005, Susan Wallace-Babb went out into a neighbor's field near her ranch in Western Colorado to close an irrigation ditch. She stepped out of her truck, took a deep breath and collapsed, unconscious. Later, after Susan came to and sought answers, a sheriff's deputy told her that a tank full of natural gas condensate less than a half mile away had overflowed into another tank. The fumes must have drifted toward the field where she was working, the deputy said. The next morning Susan was so sick she could barely move. She vomited uncontrollably and suffered explosive diarrhea. A searing pain shot up her thigh. Within days she developed burning rashes that covered her exposed skin, then lesions. Anytime she went outdoors her symptoms worsened. In 2006, she moved to Winnsboro, Texas, a small town two hours east of Dallas. In 2007, Susan testified in Congressional hearings on the health impacts of fracking. For three years her symptoms gradually improved, until she could work in her garden and go about her normal daily routine. Then, in early 2010, Exxon launched a project in an old oil field 14 miles away and began fracking wells to get them to produce more oil. Within months, Susan’s symptoms returned. Watch Susan’s testimony at the Congressional hearings.

Marilyn and Robert Hunt, West Virginia organic farmers. The Hunts own a 70-acre organic farm in Wetzel County, where they raise goats, chickens and cattle. When the landman from Chesapeake Energy approached the Hunts to lease their mineral rights, Marilyn did some research then turned down the offer. But that didn’t stop Chesapeake from, as she told ShaleReporter.com, “stealing gas from both sides of our property.” In 2010, Chesapeake received a permit for land disposal near her property and dumped waste on her land. “The water got little white flecks in it, and we started to get sick,” Marilyn said.  “We lost a whole lot of baby goats that got gastrointestinal disorders from drinking the water.” Some of the baby chicks her daughter was raising died of nervous system failure, and the ones that survived were deformed. Interestingly, though, the cattle that drink from the spring water on the highest point of her property were spared any adverse impact, leading Marilyn to believe it was the water contaminated by the fracking waste that caused the illnesses.

Christine Moore, Ohio horse rescuer. Christine Moore and her family lived a dream life rescuing horses deep inside Ohio’s Amish country. When a well was fracked five miles from her house in January 2012, Christine went door to door, begging her neighbors not to lease their land for fracking. But most of the town, many Amish and Mennonite, didn’t listen. Two months after the well near her home was fracked, the water went bad. An oily film formed across the surface of the water in her horses’ bowls. The water inside her home, pumped from her well and filtered through a softener, began giving her severe stomachaches. She sent her horses to a no-kill shelter in upstate Ohio and, in July, sold the property to her neighbor who, according to Tuscarawas County records, has oil and gas exploration leases on multiple properties. Watch Christine describe how fracking destroyed her horse farm.

Stop the Frack Attack!

Want to join with farmers fighting fracking?  Join the OCA on Mar. 2 – 4 in Dallas, Texas, for the National Summit to Stop the Frack Attack!

The summit is expected to draw hundreds of people who will share stories and learn how to become better spokespeople, learn about clean energy alternatives, celebrate fracking victories, and strengthen this national movement. There will also be a rally in Austin on Mar. 4 to welcome the Texas state government back to work. And to remind them they work for the people, not the oil and gas industry.

If you can’t make it to the summit or rally, please consider donating to a scholarship fund so others can attend.

Alexis Baden-Mayer is political director of the Organic Consumers Association.
Source:  http://www.organicconsumers.org/articles/article_27073.cfm

GMO LABELING ADVOCATES COMPLETELY MISS THE SUPREME COURT CONFLICT OF INTEREST IN BOWMAN CASE

Monsanto, the court and the seeds of dissent

Should Monsanto, or any corporation, have rights to a self-replicating natural product?

A farmer is seen holding Monsanto's Roundup Ready soybean seeds at his family farm in Bunceton, Mo. (Dan Gill / Associated Press / July 5, 2008) Op-Ed  Los Angeles Times

• The case for Prop. 37
• The case for organic food

By George Kimbrell and Debbie Barker

February 19, 2013

On Tuesday, attorneys for the largest agrochemical corporation in the world, Monsanto, will present arguments before the Supreme Court asserting the company's rights to the generations of seeds that naturally reproduce from its genetically modified strains. Bowman vs. Monsanto Co. will be decided based on the court's interpretation of a complex web of seed and plant patent law, but the case also reflects something much more basic: Should anyone, or any corporation, control a product of life?
The journey of a 75-year-old Indiana farmer to the highest court in the country began rather uneventfully. Vernon Hugh Bowman purchased an undifferentiated mix of soybean seeds from a grain elevator, planted the seeds and then saved seed from the resulting harvest to replant another crop. Finding that Bowman's crops were largely the progeny of its genetically engineered proprietary soybean seed, Monsanto sued the farmer for patent infringement.
The case is a remarkable reflection on recent fundamental changes in farming. In the 200-plus years since the founding of this country, and for millenniums before that, seeds have been part of the public domain — available for farmers to exchange, save, modify through plant breeding and replant. Through this process, farmers developed a diverse array of plants that could thrive in various geographies, soils, climates and ecosystems. But today this history of seeds is seemingly forgotten in light of a patent system that, since the mid-1980s, has allowed corporations to own products of life.
One of Monsanto's arguments is that when farmers save seed from a crop grown from patented seed and then use that seed for another crop, they are illegally replicating, or "making," Monsanto's proprietary seeds instead of legally "using" the seeds by planting them only one time and purchasing more seeds for each subsequent planting.
This logic is troubling to many who point out that it is the nature of seeds and all living things, whether patented or not, to replicate. Monsanto's claim that it has rights over a self-replicating natural product should raise concern. Seeds, unlike computer chips, for example, are essential to life. If people are denied a computer chip, they don't go hungry. If people are denied seeds, the potential consequences are much more threatening.
Although Monsanto and other agrochemical companies assert that they need the current patent system to invent better seeds, the counterargument is that splicing an already existing gene or other DNA into a plant and thereby transferring a new trait to that plant is not a novel invention. A soybean, for example, has more than 46,000 genes. Properties of these genes are the product of centuries of plant breeding and should not, many argue, become the product of a corporation. Instead, these genes should remain in the public domain.
The seed industry also claims that if patents are made narrower in scope, innovation, such as devising environmentally sustainable ways to farm, would be stifled. However, evidence casts doubt on the prevalent assumption that positive environmental impacts have resulted from their seed technologies.
Take the example of the genetically engineered soybean in question. Its innovative trait is that it is resistant to the herbicide Roundup, whose primary ingredient is glyphosate. However, weeds are developing a rapid resistance to glyphosate.
In January, Farm Industry News reported that the area of U.S. cropland infested with glyphosate-resistant weeds expanded to 61.2 million acres in 2012. These "super weeds" are gaining momentum, increasing 25% in 2011 and 51% in 2012.
In response, farmers resort to more soil-eroding tillage operations to combat the weeds, and they turn to more toxic chemicals. Based on data from the USDA, as much as 26% more pesticides per acre were used on genetically engineered crops than on conventional crops.
And what is the industry's response? Monsanto is planning to seek approval for dicamba-resistant soybeans, corn and cotton. Dow AgroSciences is seeking USDA approval of soybeans and corn resistant to 2, 4-D, an active ingredient in Agent Orange. It is difficult to understand how such innovation is enhancing the environment.
Finally, the agrochemical industry claims that its seed innovation has provided farmers more choices. Yet the market concentration of 10 agrochemical companies owning about two-thirds of global commercial seed for major crops has narrowed the choice of seeds for farmers and resulted in higher seed prices. Over an 11-year period, the cost per acre of planting soybeans has risen a dramatic 325%.
Our organizations interviewed hundreds of farmers across the nation for a recent report, "Seed Giants vs. U.S. Farmers." They explained that the high adoption rate of genetically engineered seed is largely because the companies have stopped offering conventional seed. One way to recoup the high investment that Monsanto and others say is spent on genetic engineering is to ensure that farmers have few other purchasing options.
When arguments from both sides have been presented, the Supreme Court justices will have to thoroughly consider the many complexities of patent law as it pertains to self-replicating organisms. But taking a few steps back from the microscope and the lawbooks, they may find that there is a discussion to be had about a much deeper question: the appropriate role of ownership and control over the very elements of life.
George Kimbrell is the senior attorney at the Center for Food Safety and Debbie Barker is the program director of Save Our Seeds and the international director of the Center for Food Safety.

Copyright © 2013, Los Angeles Times

Source:  http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-kimbrell-monsanto-supreme-court-seed-20130219,0,1947225.story

ILLINOIS & IOWA - GMO LABELING BILLS IN THE LEGISLATURE

Published on Wednesday, February 20, 2013 by PRWatch.org

Bills to Label Genetically Engineered Foods Introduced in Illinois and Iowa

by Rebekah Wilce

Bills were introduced in the Iowa and Illinois state senates last week that would require genetically engineered (GE) foods to be labeled. Iowa's bill would require labeling if a food contains more than nine-tenths of a percent GE ingredients, whereas Illinois' bill has a one percent threshold.
(Source: Alliance for Natural Health) California Proposition 37, which would have required labeling of GE foods in that state, failed in November 2012 by a very narrow margin, despite massive spending by the food and biotechnology industries and their lobbying groups. The European Union already requires labeling of all food, animal feeds, and processed products with GE content. And 50 countries require labeling for the GE products they import from the United States. A 2012 Mellman Group Study showed that 91 percent of U.S. voters favored having the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) require labels on GE foods and ingredients.

Possible Risks of GE Products

Environmental risks of GE crops are well documented. As CMD has reported, there was a six-fold increase in the use of glyphosate pesticides (commonly called "Roundup" after Monsanto's heavily used pesticide product) on soybeans in the first ten years since the introduction of "Roundup Ready" soybeans in 1996, the first such "Roundup Ready" crop to be planted commercially. And certain weeds, like pigweed (Amaranth), have developed resistance to pesticides like glyphosate, causing farmers to spray more.
Although GE foods are approved for human consumption by the FDA, safety concerns persist, and the FDA has no effective way to track any adverse health effects. In 2011, a study done by Canadian scientists documented the presence of pesticides associated with GE crops in the human blood for the first time. Blood was taken from women and from fetal cord blood and tested for three pesticides associated with GM: glyphosate, glufosinate, and Cry1Ab. The surprising finding was that Cry1Ab was detected in 93 percent and 80 percent of maternal and fetal blood samples, respectively and in 69 percent samples from nonpregnant women. This and other risks, such as allergenicity, are cited by Dr. Michael Hansen in a recent submission to the American Medical Association Council on Science and Public Health.

Iowa Senator Joe Bolkcom's Valentine for Voters: The Right to Know

The Iowa bill, Senate File 194, was introduced on February 14 by Senator Joe Bolkcom (D-Iowa City). The bill, if passed, would require labeling if a food contains more than nine-tenths of a percent GE ingredients.
"Consumers want to know what is in their food. This is a simple bill that gives consumers information they want," Sen. Bolkcom said in a statement released by the consumer advocacy group Food & Water Watch.

Illinois Senator Dave Koehler Introduces Bill to Label GE Foods

The Illinois bill, SB 1666, was introduced on February 13 by Senator Dave Koehler (D-Peoria). The bill, if passed, would require labeling if a food contains more than one percent GE ingredients.
"SB 1666 presents a tremendous opportunity to improve research and expand our understanding of GE crops and foods," Jessica Fujan, Illinois organizer for Food & Water Watch, said in a statement. "Labeling will give us the data we need to draw solid conclusions about GE foods, and it will give consumers the ability to make fully informed decisions about what we are eating and feeding our families. Right now, the companies that stand to profit from genetic engineering are making those decisions for us."

Washington State Voters Petition to Take GE Labeling to the Polls

Activists in Washington State delivered over 300,000 signatures to the state legislature on January 4, 2013, to put a GE food and seed labeling legislative initiative, I-522, on the ballot. That was enough to get the initiative certified. As specified by state law, the initiative goes first to the state legislature, which has the power to enact, reject or modify it. At a hearing in Olympia, Washington, on February 14, lawmakers heard both sides of the debate. Voters await the legislature's decision on the initiative.

Citizens Pushing for Labeling "Over and Over Again"

After California's Prop 37 to label GE foods failed by a narrow margin in November 2012, the big food lobby patted itself on the back cautiously and with some clear signs of exhaustion and worry. Jennifer Hatcher, senior vice president of government and public affairs for the Food Marketing Institute, who had previously said that Prop 37 "scared us to death," said in an official statement, "This gives us hope that you can, with a well-funded, well-organized, well-executed campaign, defeat a ballot initiative and go directly to the voters. We hope we don’t have too many of them, because you can’t keep doing that over and over again . . . ."
Eaters who believe in the right to know when food contains GE ingredients can join Food & Water Watch in petitioning for a national GE labeling law here, working to pass laws in the states here, or find out more from the Organic Consumers Association.

© 2013 Center for Media & Democracy

CONFLICT OF INTEREST: WHY HASN'T MONSANTO'S FORMER LEAD COUNSEL -THOMAS- RECUSED HIMSELF FROM BOWMAN CASE?

Published on Wednesday, February 20, 2013 by Common Dreams

Monsanto Recieves Warm Reception in High Court

Reportedly 'hostile' justices question 'basic activity of farming'

- Lauren McCauley, staff writer

Observations from Tuesday's Supreme Court hearing between the Monsanto corporation and Indiana soybean farmer Hugh Bowman, indicate that the sympathy of the nine justices leaned heavily towards the agro-chemical giant while heaping skepticism on the arguments made on behalf of the small farmer.
Farmer Vernon Hugh Bowman, 75, outside the Supreme Court on Tuesday, Feb. 19, 2013. (Photo: J. Scott Applewhite/AP) Presenting his case to the court, Bowman's attorney Mark Walters argued that based on the principle of "patent exhaustion" patent rights to seeds do not extend beyond the first generation.
However, according to reports, Walters' arguments were received with 'hostility' from the bench as he was "peppered with skeptical questions from almost every justice."
“The exhaustion doctrine permits you to use the good that you buy,” said Obama-appointed Justice Sonia Sotomayor. “It never permits you to make another item from that item you bought.”
Reporting on the other courtroom reactions, Bloomberg News writes that a majority of the nine justices signaled support for Monsanto's argument:

“Why in the world would anybody spend any money to try to improve the seed if as soon as they sold the first one anybody could grow more and have as many of those seeds as they want?” Chief Justice John Roberts said.
He and other justices signaled that they view seeds harvested from patented crops as new products with fresh patent protections.[...]
Justice Stephen Breyer said federal law lets a purchaser use patented soybeans for a variety of purposes, such as feeding animals or one’s family, or making “tofu turkeys.”
“What it prohibits is making a copy of the patented invention, and that is what he did,” Breyer told Bowman’s lawyer.[...]
“That’s all he is prevented from doing,” [added Justice Antonin] Scalia. “He can plant and harvest and eat or sell. He just can’t plant, harvest, and then replant.”

Mr. Walters responded to onslaught saying, “we disagree that the activity of basic farming could be considered making the invention.”
Anticipating a corporate-friendly reception in the high court, representatives from sustainability advocacy groups the Center for Food Safety (CFS) and Save our Seeds (SOS)—who are supporting Bowman's appeal—wrote in an op-ed Tuesday that this particular logic is troubling because "it is the nature of seeds and all living things, whether patented or not, to replicate." They continue: 

Monsanto's claim that it has rights over a self-replicating natural product should raise concern. Seeds, unlike computer chips, for example, are essential to life. If people are denied a computer chip, they don't go hungry. If people are denied seeds, the potential consequences are much more threatening.

According to the New York Times, Monsanto's attorney received a far warmer reception, saying that Seth P. Waxman, a former United States solicitor general, "was allowed to talk uninterrupted for long stretches, which is usually a sign of impending victory."
The Times added that "the justices appeared alert to the consequences of their eventual ruling."
As critics worry, if the justices side with Monsanto in this case, the ability of corporations "to own products of life" will be further ensconced in judicial precedent, further solidifying the ability of large agro-chemical firms to dictate the lives and practices of the world's farmers.
Source:  http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2013/02/20-2

THOMAS REFUSES TO RECUSE HIS SEAT AT PATENT ON LIFE SUPREME COURT CASE

Published on Tuesday, February 19, 2013 by Common Dreams

Who Can Own Life? Farmer vs. Monsanto Before US High Court

Indiana soybean farmer takes on corporate agriculture in defense of 'essential question'

- Lauren McCauley, staff writer

Indiana soybean farmer, Hugh Bowman, is taking his one-man-war against agriculture giant Monsanto to the Supreme Court on Tuesday where both sides will present their arguments (.pdf) to the high court. The suit calls into question essential patent rights and, more importantly, challenges whether anyone can legally "control a product of life."
75-year-old soybean farmer, Hugh Bowman, appears before the Supreme Court on Tuesday, Feb. 19, 2013. (Photo: Pablo Martinez Monsivais/ AP) A Monsanto customer for years, 75-year-old Bowman devotedly bought and planted their genetically modified (gm) 'Roundup Ready' soybean seeds each year. He crossed the corporation in 2007 when they accused Bowman of infringing on their seed patents after he planted an unmarked mix of soybeans which he purchased from a local grain elevator that supposedly contained the Monsanto gene.
After being ordered to pay $84,000, Bowman is appealing the charge and bringing his case to the high court where he will present before the chief justices, including former Monsanto attorney Justice Clarence Thomas.
"Bowman vs. Monsanto Co. will be decided based on the court's interpretation of a complex web of seed and plant patent law," writes Debbie Barker, Program Director for Save Our Seeds (SOS), and George Kimbrell, staff attorney for Center for Food Safety (CFS), in an op-ed published Tuesday, "but the case also reflects something much more basic: Should anyone, or any corporation, control a product of life?"
They continue:

[Monsanto's] logic is troubling to many who point out that it is the nature of seeds and all living things, whether patented or not, to replicate. Monsanto's claim that it has rights over a self-replicating natural product should raise concern. Seeds, unlike computer chips, for example, are essential to life. If people are denied a computer chip, they don't go hungry. If people are denied seeds, the potential consequences are much more threatening.

The case has garnered national attention as it touches upon an essential debate between corporate ownership versus essential rights and sustainability. 
In a supporting brief filed by the sustainable food advocacy group, the Center for Food Safety (CFS), they argue that intellectual property rules have spurred the privatization and concentration of the world’s seed supply with only ten companies controlling nearly two-thirds of all commercial seed for major crops, effectively driving up prices and dangerously limiting the variety of seeds planted. 
Bowman's pro-bono representation Mark Walters, from the firm of Frommer Lawrence and Haug, is reportedly prepared to argue on the principle on "patent exhaustion" that the second-hand seeds are lawfully owned by the purchaser, not by the original patent holder.
As Walters explained to NPR, if you buy something that's covered by a patent, you own it, outright. "You're allowed to put it on Craigslist and sell it, you're allowed to use it for your 'ordinary pursuits of life' is the quote from some of the old cases that we're relying on. Imagine how commerce would work if patents owners could come out of nowhere and surprise purchasers and tell them, 'Oh, you need to pay me a royalty, because I own a patent on this thing that you just bought.'"
The ramifications of this argument are widespread, as evidenced by the numerous other industries which have come to Monsanto's defense including the biotech and computer software industries.
According to the Indiana Star, the Department of Justice is also siding with the corporate patent holders, reportedly asking the Supreme Court not to hear Bowman's appeal on the basis that "the court’s decision could have repercussions for man-made cell lines, DNA molecules, some nanotechnologies and other technologies that involve self-replicating features."
Ahead of Tuesday's hearing, CFS and SOS issued a report, "Seed Giants vs. U.S. Farmers," (.pdf) which examines how the "current seed patent regime has led to a radical shift to consolidation and control of global seed supply and how these patents have abetted corporations, such as Monsanto, to sue U.S. farmers for alleged seed patent infringement."
Some of the reports findings include:

• As of January 2013, Monsanto, alleging seed patent infringement, had filed 144 lawsuits involving 410 farmers and 56 small farm businesses in at least 27 different states.
• Today, three corporations control 53 percent of the global commercial seed market.
• Seed consolidation has led to market control resulting in dramatic increases in the price of seeds. From 1995-2011, the average cost to plant one acre of soybeans has risen 325 percent; for cotton prices spiked 516 percent and corn seed prices are up by 259 percent.

“Corporations did not create seeds," said the reports lead author Debbie Barker, adding that their assertion of seed patents threatens a resource "that is vital to survival, and that, historically, has been in the public domain.”
SOURCE:  http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2013/02/19-6

POLAND FARMER SOLIDARITY TO BLOCK AND BAN GMOs

Anti-GMO Polish Farmers Bravely Press on with Protest

Filed Under: Activism | February 15, 2013

Polish Farmers Protest Against GMO Crops

Tractor Blockade Enters 10 Week

by Kimberly Hartke
Where is the International News coverage? Hello CNN?
A colorful and newsworthy tractor blockade protest is taking place all over Poland, and we have yet to see the news coverage here in the United States of America. By and large, Genetically Modified Organism news is scarce here. I believe we need more news coverage of the GMO controversy for two reasons. One, the U.S. populace knows very little about the health and economic impact of GMO crops, and two,  for those “in the know” it is a huge deal. Last years defeat of the California ballot initiative wouldn’t have happened if the general public was more educated about biotechnology and GMOs.
Last week, British artistocrat, Sir Julian Rose and a group of anti-GMO farmers continued their protest, against the attempted imposition of GM crops in both Poland and Britain. See his guest blog on Hartke is Online!: Polish Farmers Protest Sale of Land for GM Crops
If you want to know more about the health hazards of GMOs (genetically modified foods), see Jeffrey Smith’s Institute for Responsible Technology website.
Accompanied by Goldman Laureate Jadwiga Lopata and Polish citizens living in the UK, he delivered a ‘letter of support’ to the Polish Embassy for the attention of the Ambassador, Mr Witold Sobkow, saying:
“It is crucial that farmland should remain in the hands of genuine farmers and not sold-off to giant international corporate interests whose sole motives are profit and power. It’s in all our interests to stand in support of actions that resist the planting of transgenic laboratory foods that cannot be prevented from cross contaminating other crops.”

Poland, Once GMO Free Now Under EU Dictates to Add GMO Zones

The letter expressed solidarity with protesting Polish farmers who are staging extensive tractor blockading actions in five Provinces of Poland in support of their demands:

• Stop the selling-off of Polish farmland to foreign multinational corporations.
• Ban, by law, the planting and trading of GM crops on Polish soils.
• Remove onerous regulations that inhibit and prohibit the sale of made on the farm produce in local shops.

Here is another blog by Julian explaining what’s at stake on the issue: Help Keep Poland GMO Free.  More photos of protest demonstration may be seen on the International Coalition to Protect the Polish Countryside (ICPPC) website

Farmers Blockade an Agricultural Ministry with Tractors

What You Can Do to Help

1. Send this blog post to any reporter you know in the mainstream media. Suggest they cover the issue, or refer it on to someone who will.
2. Sir Julian asks you to write letters of support to encourage the farmers who have been protesting for over a month. This is the letter I wrote.

Dear Brave men and women:
I am writing to thank you for your campaign to preserve the Polish countryside and the “GMO FREE” status of your nation.
It is very important to the world community to highlight this important human health and farming issue.
Please know that food activists in America care and are with you in spirit!
Regards, Kimberly Hartke
Please send your letter of support to julian (at) icppc.pl
And, 3. Look for the GMO free label! If we won’t buy it, they’ll quit planting it!
Kimberly Hartke is a featured blogger on Village GreenNetwork.
This post is part of the feisty Fight Back Friday blog carnival on Food Renegade.
Source:  http://hartkeisonline.com/2013/02/15/anti-gmo-polish-farmers-bravely-press-on-with-protest/

NAFTA: THE HIGH COST OF SLAVE AND CHEAP LABOR FOOD

Published on Monday, February 18, 2013 by OtherWords

Another Side of the Immigration Debate: Harvesting NAFTA's Crops

We reap the benefits of cheap farm and meatpacking labor in the form of low-priced food, thanks to the contributions of millions of undocumented workers.

by Jill Richardson

Until a few years ago, Rosa Acosta had never even seen a flush toilet. She raised her 12 children in a tiny adobe home in rural Jalisco, Mexico. Several of her kids left it to work in the United States. One son, who left at age 12 to earn money as a farmworker in California, returned home to Rosa and his siblings after only a year. Another, her oldest, still works in California’s fields. Neither crossed the border legally.
After two decades of backbreaking labor in California, her oldest son and his family still live in extreme poverty. Out of his meager earnings, he sends some money back to Mexico. For many years, he had never even met his youngest siblings who were born after he left, and his mother had never met his children, her grandchildren, as neither could easily cross the border.Bread for the World/Flickr
The Acosta family is one of millions whose fate hangs in the balance as President Barack Obama tries to convince Congress that it’s time to overhaul our immigration laws.
In Mexico, the poor have family, community, and some degree of independence if they have a bit of land. Known as “campesinos,” these small-scale farmers traditionally plant squash, corn, and beans in the same field. It’s a simple yet brilliant system: The squash plants suppress weeds, the corn provides support for the beans, and the beans keep the soil fertile. These crops together form the backbone of a sustainable and healthy diet with plenty of protein and vitamins.
The journey to the United States is risky and expensive. Some migrants die on the way. Many are separated for years, decades, or even permanently from their families in Mexico. Once they arrive they live in the shadows, where they’re easily exploited because employers can threaten them with deportation.
Why do they come?
For families like the Acostas, life changed after NAFTA. Following the enactment of the U.S.-Mexican-Canadian pact two decades ago, Mexico phased out benefits that traditionally protected its farmers and changed its constitution to break up traditional communal farms known as ejidos.
After NAFTA took effect, corn prices fell so low that the poorest farmers could no longer earn money by selling it. Tortilla prices simultaneously skyrocketed, gouging urban consumers. The impact was so significant that in Mexico’s southernmost state, Chiapas, an indigenous group known as the Zapatistas declared autonomy from the Mexican state in protest.
Life was never easy for poor Mexican families — but NAFTA made it much harder. Meanwhile, on this side of the border, we reap the benefits of cheap farm and meatpacking labor in the form of low-priced food, thanks to the contributions of millions of undocumented workers. And how do we express our gratitude? Far too often, it’s with racism, hatred, and the desire that all the estimated 11 million undocumented immigrants “go home.”
By enjoying the fruits of their labor — pun intended — every consumer becomes complicit in the exploitation of undocumented workers. Harassment, wage theft, and backbreaking work that can leave workers disabled are not uncommon.
Only by bringing undocumented workers out of the shadows can we help them gain safe labor conditions. After all, if our broken immigration system is fixed, employers will no longer be able to rely on the threat of deportation to keep wages low.
Improving the immigration system will require an educated debate. For starters, we must recognize the humanity of the folks who pick our fruit and process our meat. And we must examine how our own policies, like NAFTA, hurt their home countries, further spurring immigration here.

Jill Richardson is the founder of the blog La Vida Locavore and a member of the Organic Consumers Association policy advisory board. She is the author of Recipe for America: Why Our Food System Is Broken and What We Can Do to Fix It.
SOURCE: http://www.commondreams.org/view/2013/02/18-0

BIG AG - A BIG FERTILIZING NUTRIENT DESTRUCTIVE MESS

Published on Monday, February 18, 2013 by Common Dreams

Industrial Ag Triggers Devastating 'Web' of Pollution

New report analyzes impact of excessive nitrogen and phosporous in our ecosystems

- Lauren McCauley, staff writer

A new report published Monday by the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP) implicates the global industrial farming system in the disastrous impacts that fertilizer abuse and waste are having on our natural world.
Entitled "Our Nutrient World," (.pdf) the report examines how industrial farming has forced a superabundance of nitrogen, phosphorus, and other nutrients into our ecosystems, massively altering the natural balance and causing a "web of water and air pollution."
The run-off of excessive nutrients into our rivers, lakes and streams is creating aquatic dead zones through a process of eutrophication, during which excessive growth of toxic algae blooms destroys the ecosystem and poisons the fish and other water life.
Similarly, the excess of nitrogen being pumped into the environment also contributes to air pollution, and hence global warming, by releasing harmful greenhouse gases called oxides into the atmosphere.
In a post on their Planet Earth Online blog, the UK's Natural Environment Research Council explains: 

Although our atmosphere is around 80 percent nitrogen, it's unreactive and stabilises the atmosphere. But plants can't use this unreactive form, so in order to be useful to plants and animals it needs to be converted to compounds like nitrate and ammonia in a process that also creates the greenhouse gas nitrous oxide.

According to the report's lead author, Professor Mark Sutton from Britain's Center for Ecology & Hydrology, humans have doubled the amount of nitrogen going into the environment over the past 100 years.
Indicating the difference between polluting, industrial agriculture and agro-ecological or traditional techniques, the Independent writes, "Fertilising crops was originally a natural process, using plants which 'fix' nitrogen from the air, such as clover and other legumes, or by the application of animal manure." However, since the development of large-scale, industrialized agriculture, increasingly large amounts of manufactured fertilizer have been applied to our croplands.
"Unless action is taken," UNEP warns, "increases in pollution and per capita consumption of energy and animal products will exacerbate nutrient losses, pollution levels and land degradation, further threatening the quality of our water, air and soils, affecting climate and biodiversity."
Meat production—namely the crops used to feed livestock—accounts for 80% of the nitrogen and phosphorus used in farming, according to the report. On top of that, the intense run-off of nutrient-infused animal waste at large-scale meat manufacturing facilities contributes significantly to fertilizer pollution in bodies of water.
Falling short of calling an end to fertilizer use, the report recommends cutting annual consumption by 20 million metric tonnes by the end of the decade through a series of recommendations including "connecting arable and livestock farming to improve nutrient recycling opportunities," and "lowering personal consumption of animal protein among populations consuming high rates." 
Source:  http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2013/02/18-2