Tuesday, March 10, 2015

POLISH FARMERS PROTECT GMOs - SEEKING FOOD SOVEREIGNTY

Thousands of protesters join forces to say no to GMOs and reclaim their livelihoods

Farmers in Poland have risen up against Big Ag and GMOs in one of the biggest demonstrations of its kind the country has ever seen. They are demanding: the right to sell their produce directly to the people, a total ban on GMO sales and production, the regulation of land-grabs by biotech corporations like Monsanto, the implementation of a compensation scheme for farmers whose livelihoods have been damaged, and a change to inheritance laws which currently prohibit farmers from leaving land to their heirs.

'Illegal' produce at a protest stall in Warsaw

A convoys of tractors blocked roads in late February as demonstrations occurred in hundreds of towns across the country.
‘Illegal’ produce at a protest stall in Warsaw
Later, more than 6000 farmers marched on the capital of Warsaw to demand the restoration of their basic rights. Many Polish farmers use traditional methods of farming, meaning that their crops are organic (although uncertified) and pesticide-free. At the moment, these small family farms simply cannot compete with corporations in the marketplace, and many have been made bankrupt as a result.

Protests took place throughout February and into March. They are co-ordinated by the farmers’ branch of the Solidarity Union and the International Coalition to Protect the Polish Countryside (ICPPC) and have been supported by striking bee-keepers, nurses and coalminers. A basket of ‘illegal‘ farm foods was taken to the Prime Minister’s office, while a table was set up outside to display these items and highlight the absurdity of Polish agriculture laws.

Jadwiga Lopata, a family farmer and co-director of the ICPPC said: “The health and welfare of the nation depends on consumers and farmers having access to traditional seeds and good quality food. The Polish government does not accept this and is destroying the roots of Polish agriculture by listening to corporations rather than the Polish people.”

In 2012 Polish environmentalists surrounded the Prime Minister’s office and banged a giant drum to demand a ban on GMO maize. Similar protests also took place in 2009 and 2010, but none have been as damaging to the government as the latest spate of demonstrations. Farmers vow to keep up the pressure until their demands are met, but whether they will win the war against Big-Ag remains to be seen.

Monday, March 9, 2015

"WORST COMPANY IN THE WORLD" - DEADLY ACTS GREENWASHED GLOBALLY

Monsanto’s Deep Legacy Of Corruption And Cover-Up

The History of a chemical company

By Barbara Minton

Global Research, March 08, 2015

Monsanto is now instantly recognized as the company dominating the global food supply with its more than 7000 current worldwide patents. But today’s Monsanto is not a corporate newcomer. Although its literature heralds the company as having a clear and principled code of conduct and a pledge to demonstrate integrity, respect, ethical behavior, and honesty in everything they do, the truth is that this company has a legacy of contamination and cover-up that dates back more than a century.

The Rise of one of ‘The Worst Corporations in the World’

At the turn of the 19th century, John Queeny founded Monsanto Chemical Works to produce such nefarious products as saccharin, synthetic vanillin, and laxative and sedative drugs. The company was well positioned as a leading force in the dawning American chemical industry.
From the 1920’s until the late 1960’s, Queeny’s son, Edgar Monsanto Queeny, expanded the company into a global franchise, and changed its name to Monsanto Chemical Company in 1933. He added sulfuric acid, PCBs, DDT, synthetic fibers, and an array of plastics that included polystyrene to the product line.
During this time, Monsanto also created Agent Orange, one of the herbicides and defoliants used by the U.S. military as part of its herbicidal warfare program, Operation Ranch Hand, during the Vietnam War from 1961 to 1971.
Agent Orange was a combination of equal parts of two herbicides, 2,4,5-T and 2,4-D. The 2,4,5-T used to produce Agent Orange threw off dioxin as a byproduct, a compound the World Health Organization classes as highly toxic. Dioxin can cause reproductive and developmental problems, damage to the immune system, hormone disruption, and the initiation of cancer. Dioxin persists in the environment and accumulates in the body, even at minimal exposure.
In areas where Agent Orange was used, the concentration of dioxin was hundreds of times greater than the levels considered safe by the Environmental Protective Agency (EPA). This resulted in a host of terrible health consequences for anyone exposed. and led to decades of litigation during which Monsanto fought tooth and nail to avoid paying for the horrific damage military personnel suffered from. The class action case that followed was settled out of court in 1984 for $180 million, reportedly the latest settlement of its kind at the time.
Read: Sorry Monsanto – Organic Food Demand is Exploding

More than 60 years of Contamination and Cover Up

Dioxin Leak at Nitro – $93 Million Settlement

From 1929 until 1995, Monsanto operated a chemical plant in the small town of Nitro, West Virginia, where it manufactured Agent Orange. In 1949, a pressure valve blew on a tank of the herbicide, sending plumes of smoke and vapors containing dioxin throughout the town, coating residents and the homes they lived in with powdery residue.
In a short time, some people developed skin eruptions and were diagnosed with an enduring and disfiguring condition known as chloracne. Others had prolonged pain extending from their chest to their feet. According to a medical report following the explosion, “It caused a systemic intoxication in the workers involving most major organ systems.”

Monsanto’s reaction? The company down-played it, claiming the chemical was slow-acting and just a minor irritant.

To get rid of the dioxin, the company dumped it into storm drains, streams and sewers, and stored it in landfills. Dioxin persisted in waterways and in the fish that lived in them. When residents sued for damages, they were told by Monsanto that their allegations had no merit and that the company would defend itself vigorously.
The residents of Nitro or their descendants finally received $93 million from Monsanto in 2012.

PCBs Contaminate the Town of Anniston, Alabama

PCBs (polychlorinated biphenyls) are used in many industries as hydraulic fluids, sealants, and lubricants. These chemicals have been demonstrated to cause cancer, as well as a variety of other adverse health effects on the immune, reproductive, nervous, and endocrine systems.

Monsanto’s plant in Anniston, Alabama produced PCBs from 1929 to 1971. Since then, tons of contaminated soil have been hauled away from the plant, but the site continues to be one of the most highly polluted areas in the country.

Why was it such a mess? During its production years, waste PCBs were dumped into a nearby open landfill, poured into a creek that ran alongside the plant, or just allowed to run off the property during storms. During those years, the townspeople drank from their wells, ate fish they caught, and swam in the creeks, oblivious of the PCBs. When public awareness began to mount, authorities found high levels of PCBs all over the place, and in the bodies of those people, where it will remain forever.

In 1966, a Monsanto biologist testing waterways near the Anniston plant found that when live fish were added to the water, “All 25 fish lost equilibrium and turned on their sides in 10 seconds and all were dead in 3 1/2 minutes.”

In 1970, the FDA found high levels of PCBs in fish near the Anniston plant, and Monsanto jumped into cover-up mode. A leaked internal memo from a company official outlined steps for the company to take to limit disclosure. The strategy called for engaging public officials to fight the battle for them. “Joe Crockett, Secretary of the Alabama Water Improvement Commission will try to handle the problem quietly without release of the information to the public at this time,” the memo promised.

A statement eventually released from Monsanto’s world headquarters in St. Louis stated, “Quoting both plant management and the Alabama Water Improvement Commission, the PCB problem was relatively new, was being solved by Monsanto and, at this point, was no cause for public alarm.”
The class action suit for Anniston was finally settled in 2003, when Monsanto was forced to pay $700 million.

More PCBs Dumped into the Environment

In 1977, Monsanto closed its PCB plant in Whales, but not before dumping thousands of tons of waste into the quarry of the town of Groesfaen. Authorities there say the site is still one of the most contaminated in Britain.

Internal papers indicate that Monsanto knew about the PCB dangers as early as 1953, when toxicity tests on the effects of PCBs killed more than 50% of the lab rats subjected to them. In 2011, Monsanto reluctantly agreed to help in the clean up after an environmental agency found 67 chemicals at the quarry site that were exclusively manufactured by Monsanto. Yet that effort remained underfunded and the quarry remains contaminated.

The Guardian reported that Monsanto wrote an abatement plan in 1969 which admitted “the problem involves the entire United States, Canada, and sections of Europe, especially the UK and Sweden.”

Navy Rejects Monsanto Product Because it was ‘Too Toxic’

Monsanto tried to sell its hydraulic fluid, known as Pydraul 150, to the navy in 1956, and supplied test results in their sales pitch. But the navy decided to do its own testing, and the company was informed that there would be no sale because the product proved to be too toxic. In an internal memo divulged during a court proceeding, Monsanto’s medical director stated that“no matter how we discussed the situation, it was impossible to change their thinking that Pydraul 150 is just too toxic for use in submarines.”

Monsanto Moves into Food, Biotechnology

Monsanto’s move into biotech began in the 1970’s, and in 1983 the first genetic modification of a plant cell had been achieved. Synthetic bovine growth hormone (rBST) was on the horizon. Monsanto’s public relations department portrayed GM seeds as a panacea for alleviating poverty and feeding the hungry. In 1985, the company bought NutraSweet artificial sweetener, a branded version of aspartame – the compound responsible for 75% of the complaints reported to the FDA’s adverse reaction monitoring system.

Monsanto Seeks Clean Image, Creates Solutia

In the late 1990’s, Monsanto created a new company known as Solutia, and off-loaded its chemical and fiber businesses. L. Bartlett and James B. Steele, chronicling the rise of Monsanto for Vanity Fair magazine, noted the reason for the spinoff was to channel the bulk of Monsanto’s mounting chemical lawsuits and liabilities into the spun-off company, thereby creating a clean image for Monsanto. Solutia became Monsanto’s solution!
As the company, now known simply as Monsanto, moves through the 21st century, it has a ‘new cleaned-up image,’ and a fine sounding mission statement. It refers to itself as a relatively new company that promotes sustainable agriculture and delivering products that support farmers around the world.

Except Monsanto is the 3rd most hated company in the world.
Monsanto’s legacy of contamination and cover-up should be a wake up call for you to run from the GMOs they have spawned. Remember the old adage that says leopards can’t change their spots?

SOURCE: http://www.globalresearch.ca/monsantos-deep-legacy-of-corruption-and-cover-up/5435242

NYS Advances A.617 #GMO Food Labeling Bill

And the Beat Goes On: NY State Assembly to Vote on GMO Labeling Law

Coming on the heels of the reintroduction of the Genetically Engineered Food Right-to-Know Act, on March 3, 2015, the New York State Assembly Committee on Consumer Affairs and Protection voted 9 to 6, with one abstention, to pass bill A.617, which would require food made with genetically modified organisms (GMOs) to be labeled as such.
A.617, titled “An act to amend the general business law and the agriculture and markets law, in relation to the labeling of genetically modified foods,” would require labeling for raw agricultural commodities, processed foods, seed, and seed stock produced with genetic engineering. The bill also details the penalties for misbranding and sets forth various exemptions to the GMO labeling requirement.
Under this proposed law, any food for human consumption, seed, or seed stock offered for retail sale in New York is misbranded if it is entirely genetically engineered or partially produced with genetic engineering and that fact is not clearly and conspicuously disclosed on the product’s packaging. Fines for misbranding are a civil penalty of not more than $1000 per day, per product.
Any person, firm, corporation, or other legal entity may be held responsible for false labels and misrepresentations, but retailers are not subject to penalties unless:

The retailer is the manufacturer of the GMO raw agricultural commodity, processed food, seed, or seed stock and sells the GMO product under a brand it owns or
The retailer’s failure to label was knowing and willful.

There are various exemptions for misbranding built into the bill, however. For example, food consisting entirely of, or derived entirely from, an animal that has not itself been produced with genetic engineering does not need to be labeled as GMO, regardless of whether the animal was fed with any food produced with genetic engineering.
Other exemptions include: products that were grown, raised, produced, or derived without the knowing and intentional use of GMO seed or food if the manufacturer provides a written statement in support of this lack of knowledge and intent; alcoholic beverages that are subject to regulation by the Alcoholic Beverage Control Law; food that has been lawfully certified to be labeled, marketed, and offered for sale as “organic” pursuant to the Federal Organic Foods Production Act of 1990 and the National Organic Program Regulations promulgated by the U.S. Department of Agriculture; and food that is served, sold, or otherwise provided in any restaurant, food facility, or food retailer that is engaged in the sale of food prepared and intended for immediate human consumption.
This proposed statute bears a striking similarity to the statewide GMO labeling bill rejected by California lawmakers in 2014, with nearly identical definitions and safe harbor exemptions. Unlike the proposed California law, however, New York would enforce the law through civil penalties issued by the State Department of Agriculture and markets rather than through an injunction sought by the State Attorney General to stop continued violations of the law. Further, unlike Connecticut and Maine’s GMO-labeling laws, New York’s proposed law does not have a triggering requirement based on when a certain number of states approve related legislation.
If passed, New York’s GMO labeling law would take effect twenty-four months after it becomes law. Significantly, New York would be the fourth state to approve a GMO-labeling law, which would then trigger Connecticut and Maine’s related laws. New York’s GMO labeling law, however, will likely face legal challenges similar to the lawsuit filed by the Grocery Manufacturers Association seeking to rescind Vermont’s GMO-labeling statute.
The next stop for this bill will be the New York State Assembly. Stay tuned to this space to see if New York joins Connecticut, Maine, and Vermont in passing a GMO-labeling law.
Source: http://www.consumerproductmatters.com/2015/03/and-the-beat-goes-on-ny-state-assembly-to-vote-on-gmo-labeling-law/?utm_source=Mondaq&utm_medium=syndication&utm_campaign=View-Original

STUDY: GMO SOY LESS HEALTHY - USES FAR MORE PSETICIDES THAN CONVENTIONAL

Is GMO Soybean Oil Healthier Than Non-GMO?

Becky Striepe
March 7, 2015

University of California researchers studied how GMO soybean oil impacts our health and found that claims about the oil’s health may not be accurate.
Soybean oil is in many of the processed foods on store shelves. It’s cheap, plentiful, and makes food taste good. Ninety percent of the soybeans produced in the U.S. are genetically modified, and a new GMO soybean has been marketed as producing healthier oil than its conventional counterparts.
The new oil — DuPont’s Plenish – contains zero trans fats and it being marketed to restaurants and food producers as a way to offer zero trans fat food. The company website calls the oil “heart-healthy.”
After testing by independent researchers at the University of California Riverside and UC Davis, though, it’s looking like this new soybean oil may not be as healthy as DuPont says it is. In lab tests, mice that ate Plenish oil were just as likely to develop obesity, diabetes and fatty liver as mice eating conventional soybean oil. The only benefit they found was the the Plenish mice didn’t develop insulin resistance.
Senior investigator Frances Sladek, a professor of cell biology and neuroscience at UC Riverside, said, “While genetic modification of crops can introduce new beneficial traits into existing crops, the resulting products need to be tested for long-term health effects before making assumptions about their impact on human health.” (emphasis mine)
This was the first study looking at the long-term health impacts of Plenish oil.

Of course, direct impacts are only one part of how GMOs affect human health. We can’t ignore how these soybeans go from seed to bottle and indirectly impact our health along the way.
Plenish soybeans — like other GMO soybeans in the U.S. — are engineered to also be tolerant to pesticides. In this Growers Guide from DuPont, the “Science Rules” section on page 11 talk about producing beans with a trans fat free profile that are still resistant to pests and herbicides.
Since Plenish soybeans are engineered to be pesticide resistant, they are subject the same public health pitfall as all pesticide-resistant GMO crops. In the long term, they lead to farmers use more pesticides.
There are two reasons that farmers growing GMO crops end up spraying more: they can, and then they need to. When pesticide-resistant crops first came on the scene, pesticide use did go down. But nature is resilient, and over time weeds and bugs have become resistant to pesticides like glyphosate. Farmers need to spray more to keep these superweed and superbugs at bay. And since you can saturate these resistant crops in pesticides without killing them, farmers can spray away without hurting their yields.
At this point, biotech companies are having to create crops resistant to even more toxic pesticides, because conventional ones aren’t working well for so many farmers.
All of those pesticides are bad news. They pollute ground water, contaminate soil, and make their way onto our dinner plates. Pesticide residues are linked to health concerns from lowered intelligence to autism.
DuPont has created a cooking oil that doesn’t cause insulin resistance but is linked directly to obesity, diabetes, and fatty liver. It’s also linked indirectly to the myriad of health problems that come from exposure to pesticide residues. Is it worth it?

RHODE ISLAND STEPS UP TO 2015 GMO LEGISLATION PLATE

GMO labeling bill gets another shot in Rhode Island

Published time: March 09, 2015 17:55

Get short URL

A bill has been introduced in the Rhode Island Legislature that would require labeling of any genetically-engineered ingredients in food consumed by humans.
State Sen. Donna Nesselbush recently introduced two nearly identical bills to the Senate Health & Human Services Committee that would demand disclosure of any foods or ingredients that were genetically manipulated, making Rhode Island the latest state to respond to the popular movement seeking to mandate labeling.
The differences in the two bills lies in how they when they would be implemented. If passed, Rhode Island’s Senate Bill 549 would simply go into effect on Jan. 1, 2017.
Senate Bill 557, however, includes a trigger clause, requiring four US states outside of Rhode Island -- including one adjacent state -- with an aggregate population exceeding 20 million to pass similar legislation.
Both bills would also disallow any GMO products from being regarded as 'natural' foods.
Bills requiring GMO labeling fell short in the Rhode Island legislature in both 2013 and 2014.
In opposition to labeling laws, major agribusiness and biotechnology conglomerates like Monsanto have spent immense amounts of cash to cloud the ‘right-to-know’ movement in the US.

According to the Center for Food Safety, dozens of states have in recent years considered labeling legislation and ballot initiatives while a handful have passed laws mandating GMO (genetically-modified organism) transparency. Voters in California and Washington State narrowly rejected ballot initiatives in 2012 and 2013, respectively, though not without dragging the likes of Monsanto, Bayer, and Dow Chemical into expensive campaigns to defeat the measures.
Last November, labeling efforts were defeated in Colorado and Oregon, albeit narrowly for the latter state. In what became the most expensive campaign in Oregon’s history, Yes on 92 – the pro-labeling contingent – was outspent $21 million to $9 million by No on 92, which included major agribusiness and biotechnology companies with deep pockets, including Monsanto and DuPont, as well as anti-labeling trade group the Grocery Manufacturers Association.
One labeling effort succeeded in November, in Hawaii’s Maui County, though Monsanto and Dow Chemical quickly sued the county despite voters’ wishes.
READ MORE: ‘Claims exaggerated’: Bioenergy challenges sustainable food future, study says
Amid a wave of concern over GMO foods sweeping through the US and around the world, agricultural giants lobbying against labeling measures have spent over $100 million fighting the measures nationwide, a sum certain to increase with each passing year.
In response to popular concern over the ramifications of genetically-modified organisms, powerful farming and biotechnology interest groups have joined forces, as RT has previously reported, under the name 'Coalition for Safe Affordable Food' to push a federal voluntary labeling standard for food made with GMOs.
The Safe and Accurate Food Labeling Act of 2014 -- called the “Denying Americans the Right-to-Know Act” by opponents -- was introduced by Republican Rep. Mike Pompeo, an ally of Charles and David Koch, heads of the powerful multinational corporation Koch Industries. In December, according to reporting by AgriPulse Communications, Pompeo said hoped the bill would see legislative action at the committee level in March or April 2015.

Congressional supporters of an involuntary federal labeling standard have countered with the Genetically Engineered Food Right-to-Know Act, reintroduced in Congress last month.
Vermont’s governor signed the nation’s first GMO labeling requirement into law in 2014, to take effect in 2016, but a coalition of biotech firms and farmer groups filed a lawsuit to prevent that from happening.
Connecticut passed legislation saying it would require labeling, but for the law to go into effect, it required neighboring states whose populations add up to at least 20 million residents to pass similar legislation. Maine passed a labeling bill in 2014, requiring five nearby states, including New Hampshire, to pass similar legislation before its own law takes effect.
READ MORE: Monsanto agrochemicals cause genetic damage in soybean workers – study
GMO crops and ingredients have been consumed in the US for more than two decades. Large amounts of corn, soybeans, and canola produced in the US are genetically engineered. As much as 75 percent of processed food made in the US contains GMO ingredients.
Opponents of GMO labeling involve major retailers and agribusiness firms that depend on domination of the food supply. Their major argument is that GMO foods, especially corn and soy, have been consumed by Americans for around 20 years and have not been shown to have an impact on human health in that time.

While some supporters of GMO labeling concede that human health may not be affected by the direct consumption of GMOs, there are other worries that have pushed the pro-labeling contingent, some of whom are completely anti-GMO, to call for more transparency from the food industry.
Companies like Monsanto and Dow Chemical market their own patented seeds that, given their genetic modification, can be doused with biocides to kill pests and weeds, and which can jeopardize long-term health of the soil and the necessary biodiversity of a local environment that allows for natural pollination and, thus, food security.
According to a study that analyzed research on labeling costs ahead of Oregon’s ballot initiative, mandatory labeling of genetically-engineered foods available to consumers would result in a cost increase of only $2.30 per person each year.

Source: http://on.rt.com/wdl22p

Clean Food Earth