Saturday, May 3, 2014

AGENT ORANGE 2,4-D - USED IN VIETNAM WARFARE - NEAR APPROVAL FOR OUR FOOD SUPPLY

​EPA advances approval of powerful weed killer for Dow’s ‘Agent Orange’ GMO crops
Reuters / Doug Wilson / USDA
Photo / Handout
Reuters / Doug Wilson / USDA Photo / Handouthare on tumblr

Published time: May 02, 2014 00:56
Edited time: May 03, 2014 14:35


Dow would be allowed to sell the herbicide if the EPA approves it following a 30-day publiccomment period.The US Environmental Protection Agency has revealed a proposal for mass use of Dow Chemical’s herbicide 2,4-D on the company’s genetically-engineered corn and soybeans. The GE crops were developed to withstand several herbicides, including 2,4-D.

The 2,4-D chemical, combined with glyphosate, makes up the herbicide Enlist Duo. 2,4-D also makes up half of the toxic mix in the now infamous 'Agent Orange,' used by the United States during the Vietnam War, which is thought to have resulted in the deaths of an estimated 400,000 people and birth defects in 500,000 others.

Dow’s genetically-engineered corn and soybeans – known as Enlist – have received preliminary approval from the US Department of Agriculture. Should Enlist crops win ultimate authorization, the USDA said that would increase the annual use of 2,4-D (2,4-dichlorophenoxyacetic acid) in the United States from 26 million pounds per year to possibly176 million pounds.

The crops are designed to withstand high doses of glyphosate – brought to market by biotech giant Monsanto as their Roundup weed killer – and 2,4-D. Dow’s corn and soybeans thus earned the derogatory name 'Agent Orange' crops by opponents of both the highly-toxic chemical mix and the controversial use of genetically-modified organisms (GMOs) in large-scale agriculture.

Scientists, human and environmental health advocates, farming organizations, and food transparency groups have urged government regulators to think twice about unleashing more 2,4-D.

In 2012, seventy health scientists sent a letter to the EPA asking it to block approval of Dow’s 2,4-D-resistant corn and soybeans for commercial sale.

Medical researchers have linked exposure to 2,4-D, and other chemicals like it, to increased rates of cancer, Parkinson’s disease, endocrine disruption, and low sperm counts, among other conditions. Higher rates of birth anomalies have been found where there is heavy use of 2,4-D.

Health concerns had prompted the Natural Resources Defense Council to petition the EPA to halt use of the herbicide, though that effort was defeated in 2012.

“With this decision it is clear that the EPA is serving the interests of Dow Chemical and the biotech industry rather than protecting our health and the environment,” said Andrew Kimbrell, executive director of the Center for Food Safety.

In an agribusiness chemical arms race, Dow’s development of 2,4-D-resistant crops came about once first-generation genetically-modified crops made by Monsanto evolved to resist the company’s Roundup herbicide. The flood of new GE crops increased the use of glyphosate, which has its own links to a host of ill health effects, and glyphosate-resistant “superweeds.”

“2,4-D is not a solution to glyphosate-resistant weeds,” Kimbrell said. “Weeds will rapidly evolve resistance to 2,4-D as well if these crops are approved, driving a toxic spiral of ever-increasing herbicide use. Dow’s Enlist crops are a textbook example of unsustainable farming, profiting pesticide companies to the detriment of American farmers, public health and the environment.”

Nevertheless, Dow maintains that farmers need an answer for “hard to control” weeds.

“Enlist Duo herbicide will help solve the weed control challenges growers are facing, and will be another option to further reduce the potential for development of herbicide-resistant weeds,” said Damon Palmer of Dow AgroSciences, a subsidy of Dow Chemical Company.

“At a time when farmers need to raise crop outputs to meet growing demand, the Enlist Weed Control System will provide an important tool and substantial economic benefits,” Palmer added in a press release.

ROUNDUP GLYPHOSATE TOXICITY: HOW MANY MORE STUDIES WILL IT TAKE?

Meta-Analyses Finds Link Between Glyphosate and Cancer of the Lymph Tissue

Mike Barrett
by 
May 1st, 2014
Updated 05/01/2014 at 12:40 pm
gmo roundup pesticides biohazard 263x164 Meta Analyses Finds Link Between Glyphosate and Cancer of the Lymph TissueGiven  the extent of published research
pieces finding a positive relationship between glyphosate (the active ingredient in Monsanto’s best-selling herbicide RoundUp) and cancer, it isn’t very jaw-dropping anymore to hear of a new study coming to similar conclusions. Indeed, one new review and a series of meta-analyses of 30 years-worth of research has found that Monsanto’s RoundUp could be causing blood cancers in the lymph glands, specifically non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL).
The review focused on 30 years-worth of epidemiologic research on the connection between NHL and exposure to ingredients used in agricultural pesticides. The researchers examined the results from 44 papers, which found an association between NHL and 21 pesticide chemical groups and 80 active ingredients. The meta-analyses showed that phenoxy herbicides, carbamate insecticides, organophosphorus insecticides and the active ingredient lindane, an organochlorine insecticide, were positively associated with NHL.
What’s more, the study abstract reports:
In a handful of papers, associations between pesticides and NHL subtypes were reported; B cell lymphoma was positively associated with phenoxy herbicides and the organophosphorus herbicide glyphosate.

Diffuse large B-cell lymphoma was positively associated with phenoxy herbicide exposure. Despite compelling evidence that NHL is associated with certain chemicals, this review indicates the need for investigations of a larger variety of pesticides in more geographic areas, especially in low- and middle-income countries, which, despite producing a large portion of the world’s agriculture, were missing in the literature that were reviewed.”
But of course this isn’t the only study to find a connection between pesticides, glyphosate, and cancer. One groundbreaking study has found that glyphosate is responsible for fueling breast cancer by increasing the number of breast cancer cells through cell growth and cell division. The effects are so potent, in fact, that the cancer cell proliferation is driven even when we’re talking about RoundUp in the parts-per-trillion (PPT) range.
These are just a few of the countless studies revealing the many dangers of RoundUp, pesticides, and glyphosate. It is these findings that are causing nations around the world to limit pesticide use, or ban the ingredients altogether. Sri Lanka became the first country to ban Monsanto’s toxic RoundUp Ready chemical, glyphosate, in light of recent studies linking it to chronic kidney failure, while a full suspension of glyphosate is being demanded by the Brazilian Federal Public Prosecutor in the Federal District. What’s more, the Netherlands have passed a similar ban to Russia, Tasmania, and Mexico, disallowing the used of glyphosate-laced herbicides by the general public.
It is time the United States makes a move of it’s own. Just how many studies need to reveal glyphosate’s dangers before we ignite a ban of our own?
About Mike Barrett:
2.thumbnail Meta Analyses Finds Link Between Glyphosate and Cancer of the Lymph TissueGoogle Plus Profile |Mike is the co-founder, editor, and researcher behind Natural Society. Studying the work of top natural health activists, and writing special reports for top 10 alternative health websites, Mike has written hundreds of articles and pages on how to obtain optimum wellness through natural health.


Read more: http://naturalsociety.com/meta-analyses-finds-association-glyphosate-cancer-lymph-tissue/#ixzz30gRyaRhh
Follow us: @naturalsociety on Twitter | NaturalSociety on Facebook

Friday, May 2, 2014

NY - HOPEFUL FOR PASSAGE OF GE FOOD LABELING BILL



NY bill would force labeling of ‘genetically engineered’ food

ALBANY -- A measure with strong sponsors in the state Legislature would require that foods containing genetically engineered material be labeled that way to alert consumers.
“More and more people read labels and care about what they are putting in their mouths and their bodies, so I thought this bill that is simply a labeling bill would be a no-brainer,” said Sen. Kenneth LaValle  (R-Port Jefferson).
Apparently it isn’t.
LaValle and his co-sponsor on the bill, Assemb. Linda B. Rosenthal (D-Manhattan), said they are facing opposition from major food manufacturers including the Monsanto Co., General Mills and Kraft Foods. The bill’s sponsors also say some elements of the farm lobby and grocery store chains also oppose the measure, which Rosenthal said was unexpectedly defeated last year in the Assembly late in the session.
There was no immediate comment from the companies. Food companies have argued there is little evidence to prove that genetically engineered foods aren’t as safe as food grown without the manipulation. But consumer fears are driving a national effort to at least label such food products.
The bill states as much as 70 percent of groceries contain some genetically modified ingredients. Several states are proposing labeling bills and disclosure of genetically engineered foods is required in Japan,  South  Korea,  China, Australia,  New  Zealand,  Thailand,  Russia,  and the European Union, according to the bill.
Rosenthal said she and LaValle are fighting “the industry’s campaign of deceit.”
“We stand at an important moment in the debate to label GMOs.,” she said. “Worldwide, consumers have made it clear that want to label GMOs because they demand to know."
LaValle, who had once  proposed a ban on genetically engineered material in foods, said he’s optimistic.
“In my years in the Legislature, I have learned that every bill will have it’s own time,” LaValle said. “And we are very close for this bill to have its own time.”
He also cited the impact of growing support of several groups lobbying for the measure. They include Consumers Union, the New York Public Interest Research Group, the Sierra Club Atlantic Chapter and the Organic Farming Association. The groups are sending fliers this week to residents in the district represented by Assemb. Edward Hennessey (D-Medford). He sits on the consumer affairs committee and is considered a key vote for the issue.
Hennessey didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment.
“Consumers have a right to know what’s in the food they eat,” said Jean Halloran, director of Food Policy Initiatives at Consumers Union.  “We hope that when Assembly member Hennessey’s constituents see what’s at stake, they will convince him to choose consumers over big corporations that want consumers to remain in the dark.”
The amount of a fine is yet to be determined. Companies would have two years to comply with the law if it’s passed.
The bill would require labeling of food or food products that contain a genetically engineered material or that are produced with a genetically engineered material, according to the legislation. The bill would also impose penalties for false labels and misbranding.
The process engineers foods such as corn, wheat, canola, apples and strawberries through genes to add or create new character traits within a plant. The bill states the engineered genes are introduced into the cells of plants through viruses, antibiotic resistant genes and bacteria.

Thursday, May 1, 2014

COMMONS POWER: RESIST MONOPOLIES=PRIVATIZATION OF PLANET EARTH


Seeds of Freedom

If we have to survive as a species, we need to reclaim our commons — of seed, of climate, of knowledge and resist the privatisation of every aspect of life.

(Image: seedsaver.org)For thousands of years farmers, especially women, have evolved and bred seed freely with the help of nature to increase the diversity of what nature gave us and adopt it to the needs of different cultures. Biodiversity and cultural diversity have mutually shaped one another.
Every seed is an embodiment of millennia of nature’s evolution and centuries of farmers’ breeding. It is the distilled expression of the intelligence of the earth and intelligence of farming communities. Farmers have bred seeds for diversity, resilience, taste, nutrition, health and to adapt it for local agro-ecosystems.
In times of climate change we need the biodiversity of farmers’ varieties to adapt and evolve. Climate extremes are being experienced through more frequent and intense cyclones that bring salt water to the land. To develop resilience against cyclones, we need salt tolerant varieties of seeds, and we need them in the commons. Along coastal areas, farmers have evolved flood tolerant and salt tolerant varieties of rice such as Bhundi, Kalambank, Lunabakada, Sankarchin, Nalidhulia, Ravana, Seulapuni, Dhosarakhuda.
"By adding one new gene to the cell of a plant, corporations claimed they had invented and created the seed, the plant, and all future seeds that were now their property. In other words GMO meant 'God Move Over.'"
These seeds have been evolved by farmers and need to stay in the commons to gain resilience against climate change.
After the Orissa Supercyclone, Navdanya could distribute salt tolerant rice to farmers because we had conserved them as a commons in our community seed bank run by Kusum Mishra and Dr Ashok Panigrahi in Balasore, Orissa. Hence we were about to donate two truckloads of salt tolerant seeds to the farmers, who could not grow rice because of the sea salt deposited on their farms. As I have written in my book—Soil, Not Oil—40 per cent of the greenhouse gases come from an industrialised and globalised model of agriculture. Having created the crisis, corporations, who made profits from industrial agriculture, now want to turn the climate crisis they have contributed to into an opportunity to control climate resilient seeds and climate data. Corporations like Monsanto have taken 1,500 patents on climate resilient crops. With these very broad patents, Monsanto and other corporations can prevent access to climate resilient seeds after climate disasters since a patent is an exclusive right to produce, distribute and sell the patented product. This implies that the farmers’ right to save and share seed is now defined as “theft,” an “intellectual property crime”.
While nature and farmers have evolved the traits of climate resilience in seeds, corporations claim their role of creator; they declare that seeds are their “invention,” hence their patented property.
In times of climate change, such monopolies aggravate the disaster by blocking farmers’ rights to seeds they have evolved.
Hence, seed as a common good became a commodity of private seed companies, traded on the open market.
For example, on July 5, 2013, Justice Prabha Sridevi, chair of the Intellectual Property Appellate Board of India and D.P.S. Parmar, technical member, dismissed Monsanto’s appeal against the rejection of their patent application to the patent office for “Methods of enhancing stress tolerance in plants and methods thereof." The title of the patent was later amended to “A method of producing a transgenic plant, with increasing heat tolerance, salt tolerance or drought tolerance”.
Industrial breeding and intellectual property rights including patents on seed fail to recognise nature’s contributions and farmers’ contribution in giving us climate resilient crops. Just as the jurisprudence of Terre Nullius defined the land as empty, and allowed the takeover of territories by the European colonies, the jurisprudence of intellectual property rights related to life forms is, in fact, a jurisprudence of “Bio Nullius” — life empty of intelligence. The Earth is defined as dead matter, so it cannot create. And the farmers have empty heads so they cannot breed seeds.
The door to patents on seed and patents on life was opened by genetic engineering. By adding one new gene to the cell of a plant, corporations claimed they had invented and created the seed, the plant, and all future seeds that were now their property. In other words GMO meant “God Move Over.”
Section 3(j) of the Patents Act, 1970, recognises that life forms are not an invention and hence biological processes cannot be treated as inventions.
Today, this freedom of nature and culture to evolve is under violent and direct threat. The threat to seed freedom impacts the very fabric of human life and the life of the planet. Not only are corporations like Monsanto claiming patent monopolies on climate resilient seeds, they are also claiming monopoly on climate and weather data. Monsanto has bought the Climate Corporation, which controls vast data on climate for $1 billion.
"The threat to seed freedom impacts the very fabric of human life and the life of the planet."
Not only will Monsanto sell the chemicals and seeds adapted to their chemicals to farmers, they will also sell climate data. This is a strategy for total control of agriculture in times of climate change.
The National Weather Service Duties Act of 2005 was a legislative proposal forwarded in April 2005 by United States Senator Rick Santorum to bar the national weather service from issuing forecasts so that climate and weather services can be privatised. In effect, the knowledge of a cyclone or flood would only be provided to those who could pay.
The vision of the corporations and sadly the US government is to privatise every aspect of life — our seeds and biodiversity, the atmospheric commons, and the knowledge of the climate and weather as a public good.
At a time when the world needs to recognise that life forms, including seeds, are not an invention and the US should correct its laws to be more in alignment with the Rights of the Earth and with human rights, the US government is threatening India with trade retaliation to force us to change our patent laws yet again and introduce the unethical, unscientific and anti-human laws of patent monopolies on seed and medicine.
America’s National Association of Manufacturers — which represents about 50 US business groups — gave the suggestion to the US Trade Representatives’ office to designate India a “Priority Foreign Country”, a tag it gives to worst offenders of intellectual property rights. This is not just a US-India dispute. It is a fight against corporate enclosures of the commons. If we have to survive as a species, we need to reclaim our commons — of seed, of climate, of knowledge and resist the privatisation of every aspect of life.
We need to create the commons of the seed and cultivate seed freedom through seed saving, seed exchange and participatory breeding.

Monday, April 28, 2014

FOOD BANKS VULNERABLE TO DROUGHT LOSSES


California drought: Food banks drying up, too

Joe Garofoli
Updated 11:08 pm, Sunday, April 20, 2014

South Hayward Parish distributes dry goods, fruits and vegetables. The food bank serves more than 100 families a day. Photo: Michael Macor, The Chronicle | Buy this photo

The effects of California's drought could soon hit the state's food banks, which serve 2 million of its poorest residents.

Fresh produce accounts for more than half the handouts at Bay Area food banks, but with an estimated minimum of 500,000 acres to be fallowed in California, growers will have fewer fruits and vegetables to donate.

With less local supply, food prices will spike, increasing as much as 34 percent for a head of lettuce and 18 percent for tomatoes, according to an Arizona State University study released last week. With fewer fields planted, there could be as many as 20,000 unemployed agricultural workers who will need more food handouts, especially in the Central Valley.

And if urban food banks like those in Oakland and San Francisco can't get produce from the valley, which grows a third of the nation's fruits and vegetables, their transportation costs to haul in out-of-state produce will soar.

Sue Sigler, head of the California Association of Food Banks, calls it "a perfect storm" of drought-related factors.

"It's not like we can raise our prices - everything is free," said Paul Ash, director of the San Francisco/Marin Food Bank, which distributes 149,000 meals a day across the two counties. "Not knowing (what the drought's effect will be) is a real frustration. We have to be planners, and it's hard to do that right now."

A penny difference


The Alameda County Community Food Bank expects to distribute roughly 17.8 million pounds of produce next year - about 14.5 million of that amount via the California Association of Food Banks. The Alameda County food bank pays 11 cents a pound to cover picking, packing and freight costs. Even a 1 cent per pound increase could mean $145,000 in additional costs. With an annual budget of $12 million, the organization can't take too many hits like that.

"There's absolutely a lot of nervousness here," said Allison Pratt, director of policy and services at the Alameda County food bank.

Also nervous is Mark Johnson - a Castro Valley father of two who visits three food banks a month, including one at South Hayward Parish in Hayward operated by the Alameda County food bank.

Fresh produce "would cost me $150-$175 a month if I had to buy it," said Johnson, toting two paper bags of celery and oranges.

He said he relies almost exclusively on food banks for his produce because "my income's not going up." Johnson, 58, does some freelance video production and manages an apartment building in exchange for rent.

Just ahead of him in line last week was Cathy Garcia and her 3-year-old son, Bryan. For the past six months, she has stopped by the South Hayward Parish. They've needed extra help as her husband struggles to pick up construction and landscaping work.

Garcia is 8 1/2 months pregnant and wants to keep eating healthy, so she relies on the produce from the pantry. She doesn't have the $50 a month it would cost her to buy the produce she receives from the pantry and elsewhere.

"Oh, no, it would be too much," Garcia said.

The lines keep growing. Four years ago, the program served 30 families a day during the four days a week it was open. Now it serves more than 100 families a day, said Ralph Morales, who is the director of the emergency food program at South Hayward Parish.

Central Valley impact

If the drought's impacts are as big as predicted, and there is less produce to go around, "the food we give people will last only two, two-and-a-half days," he said. "Now it is supposed to last three."

The drought's biggest impact will be in the Central Valley, where some food banks are already working to change their distribution strategy. They don't want a repeat of what happened five years ago, when the peak of the last drought coincided with the housing meltdown.

3-year-old Christopher Vargas snacks as his mother collects bread during the food bank distribution at South Hayward Parish. Photo: Michael Macor, The Chronicle | Buy this photo

The effects of California's drought could soon hit the state's food banks, which serve 2 million of its poorest residents.

Fresh produce accounts for more than half the handouts at Bay Area food banks, but with an estimated minimum of 500,000 acres to be fallowed in California, growers will have fewer fruits and vegetables to donate.

With less local supply, food prices will spike, increasing as much as 34 percent for a head of lettuce and 18 percent for tomatoes, according to an Arizona State University study released last week. With fewer fields planted, there could be as many as 20,000 unemployed agricultural workers who will need more food handouts, especially in the Central Valley.

And if urban food banks like those in Oakland and San Francisco can't get produce from the valley, which grows a third of the nation's fruits and vegetables, their transportation costs to haul in out-of-state produce will soar.

Sue Sigler, head of the California Association of Food Banks, calls it "a perfect storm" of drought-related factors.

"It's not like we can raise our prices - everything is free," said Paul Ash, director of the San Francisco/Marin Food Bank, which distributes 149,000 meals a day across the two counties. "Not knowing (what the drought's effect will be) is a real frustration. We have to be planners, and it's hard to do that right now."

If the drought's impacts are as big as predicted, and there is less produce to go around, "the food we give people will last only two, two-and-a-half days," he said. "Now it is supposed to last three."

The drought's biggest impact will be in the Central Valley, where some food banks are already working to change their distribution strategy. They don't want a repeat of what happened five years ago, when the peak of the last drought coincided with the housing meltdown.

Source: http://www.sfgate.com/politics/joegarofoli/article/California-drought-Food-banks-drying-up-too-5416846.php#photo-6189896