GE Free BC

The Greed Revolution

understandingbobdylan — Thu, 26 Jan 2012 05:09:47 +0000

ETC Group
News Release
18 January 2012
www.etcgroup.org

Big Agribusiness Influence Threatens to Override Public Interest in Greed Revolution

A new 30-page report that documents the growing influence of agribusiness on the multilateral food system and the lack of transparency in research funding has been released today by the international civil society organization ETC Group. The Greed Revolution: Mega Foundations, Agribusiness Muscle In On Public Goods presents three case studies – one involving the UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) and two involving CGIAR Centers (Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research) – which point to a dangerous trend that will worsen rather than solve the problem of global hunger. The report details the involvement of, among others, Nestlé, Heineken, Monsanto, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and Syngenta Foundation.

“It is unacceptable that the UN is giving multinational agribusiness privileged access to alter their agricultural policies,” said Pat Mooney, Executive Director of ETC Group, who has been involved in the field for 40 years. “It is ridiculous that the key organizations responsible for agricultural research have no credible data on the extent of corporate involvement in their work and that CGIAR’s biggest funder – at $89 million – is somebody called, ‘Miscellaneous!’ Governments and UN secretariats have forgotten that their first task is to serve the public – not the profiteers.”

The report shows that multinational corporations are now seeing their future profitability in “emerging economies,” and they are finally taking notice of the international institutions that have been quietly working throughout the global South for half a century. However this new interest in UN agencies is causing “mandate-muddle” as companies demand that policy be rewritten to better reflect their interests, including allowing privileged access to publicly held germplasm. Public institutions are tending to look the other way when Big Ag harms peasant agriculture.

“Public institutions related to food and agriculture are mandated to support the poor and hungry.

Governments need to address the big- and small-scale conflicts of interest, beginning with a long overdue investigation of the links between the international public and private sectors in food and agriculture. Based on our initial conversations with UN officials about this research, we are hopeful that this will happen,” concludes Mooney.

For more information:

Pat Mooney, ETC Group (Ottawa), etc@etcgroup.org; +1 613 241 2267; cell: +1 613 240 0045
Silvia Ribeiro, ETC Group (Mexico City), silvia@etcgroup.org; +52 55 5563 2664; cell: +52 1 55 2653 3330

If U.S. approves GE salmon, Canada may follow suit: memo

understandingbobdylan — Wed, 18 Jan 2012 04:57:21 +0000

Altered fish on federal ministry's menu

Roundup Ready Alfalfa Ready to be planted

understandingbobdylan — Wed, 18 Jan 2012 04:54:25 +0000

From CountryWorld Online

For the first time since 2006, Roundup Ready alfalfa has been planted, despite suits that aimed to block the action.

According to Monsanto.com the USDA’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service completed the Environmental Impact Statement in December 2010, and in January 2011, authorized the resumption of sale and planting of Roundup Ready (RR) alfalfa. Now, with alfalfa planting season well under way, consumers will soon see higher volumes of RR alfalfa on the market.

For some in the organic community, this refuels concerns about cross-contamination with organic alfalfa fields, while others are looking forward to the possibility of a higher quality alfalfa product.

“One thing to keep in mind, is that all alfalfa is a product of a breeding and genetics effort,” said Dr. Calvin Trostle, associate professor and Extension agronomist at the Texas AgriLife Research and Extension Center. “It is just the difference of Roundup Ready alfalfa, or other Roundup crops that they have introduced genetic material from other sources, outside of say an alfalfa plant, and the purpose of that genetic material could be insect control, could be disease resistance.”

For the rest of this CountryWorld Online story click here

Seeds of destruction

understandingbobdylan — Wed, 18 Jan 2012 04:52:11 +0000

This book comes recommended by an organic farmer on Vancouver Island

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=25303

Canada’s food dependency

understandingbobdylan — Wed, 18 Jan 2012 04:46:09 +0000

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CRfjMOjrfnI

Here’s a graphic display of how little of our food we grow.

BASF retreats from Europe as GM crops rejected

understandingbobdylan — Wed, 18 Jan 2012 04:40:29 +0000

BASF retreats from Europe as GM crops rejected

Brussels, 16 January 2012 – BASF today announced it is abandoning its plans to develop and commercialise genetically modified (GM) crops in Europe .Greenpeace EU agriculture policy director Marco Contiero said: “BASF admits that Europeans don’t want GM crops, and for good reason. It’s not just the worrying health concerns, GM crops go hand in glove with factory farming, pesticide use, pest resistance and disappointing long-term yields.

“Europeans are not alone in rejecting GM food. BASF’s retreat to the Americas follows a string of defeats for the industry over the last two years in China, India, the Philippines, Thailand and elsewhere. Over 90% of GM food crops are grown in just four countries in the Americas.”

In 2011, India rejected the authorisation of a GM aubergine, the only GM food for which an authorisation was sought, while in September 2011 China suspended the commercialisation of GM rice. The Philippines and Thailand have also rejected GM rice.

BASF is shelving its antibiotic resistant potato Amflora, one of only two GM crops authorised for cultivation in Europe. The crop was a commercial flop.

Good news: court to review safety of Roundup

understandingbobdylan — Mon, 19 Dec 2011 04:11:17 +0000

Court demands Health Canada re-examine pesticide

The Canadian Press

http://www.cbc.ca/news/health/story/2011/11/22/pesticide-review-roundup.html

A court has ordered Health Canada to reconsider its decision not to review the effects of a popular herbicide, a ruling that some say will strengthen the public’s hand in forcing the government to answer environmental concerns.

“We put a crack in the door,” said Josette Wier, who took the government to court after a forestry company began spraying Roundup from airplanes near her Smithers, B.C., home. “That door was locked — it was impossible.” Health Canada had planned a major review of Roundup in the near future but a B.C. court says that will take too long. Jeff Roberson/Associated Press

Wier asked for a special review on the use of Roundup, especially when it is combined with another chemical called POEA that allows it to spread more evenly. Legislation allows Health Canada to call such a review if the request is accompanied by new evidence gathered since the chemical’s original approval.

Wier provided 15 recent peer-reviewed studies that raised questions about the Roundup-POEA combination’s effect on pregnant women, men, animal fetuses and frogs. But in August 2009, Health Canada refused to investigate.

Wier asked for a judicial review of that decision. She dropped the studies concerning human health and focused her case on the herbicide’s effects on frogs and salamanders.

This week in Vancouver, Federal Court Justice Michael Kelen put aside Health Canada’s original decision and ordered the government to look again at Wier’s request.

“The decision is not transparent or intelligible, because the decision does not expressly address the narrow environmental risk at issue in this case,” Kelen wrote.

He noted that while the Canadian Forest Service had done field studies suggesting the risk was minimal, the B.C. government had concerns and suggested a re-evaluation of the risk.

A spokesman from Health Canada was not available to comment. The department has 30 days to appeal the ruling.

Health Canada had planned a major review of Roundup in the near future. But Kelen ruled that review would take too long to address Wier’s specific concerns. He added that reviewing scientific literature informally isn’t good enough.

Lawyer Jason Gratl, who argued Wier’s case, said the judge’s decision gives the public more power in ensuring environmental concerns are dealt with.

“Members of the public, just by bringing information to the minister of health, require [her] to review [herbicide] products,” he said.

“It’s got to be evidence of sufficient strength to raise a credible concern that there might be some possible risks associated with the [herbicide]. It’s a pretty low bar, actually.”

This is HUGE: California considers a ballot referendum on labelling

understandingbobdylan — Mon, 19 Dec 2011 03:59:48 +0000

And, if it’s possible in California, why not in BC?

http://carighttoknow.org/?q=node/17

December 12, 2011

Dear friends and colleagues,

We have some exciting news to share with you. On November 10, 2011, we filed the California Right to Know Genetically Engineered Food Act with the State Attorney General. This initiative, when passed by a majority of California voters in November 2012, will require foods sold in California retail outlets that contain genetically engineered ingredients to be labeled, just like other nutritional facts.

We know that California is ready for this change, but we also know that only a ballot initiative can bring it about. Virtually no other political process has the potential to create such a monumental force for reform.

We submitted this initiative at a pivotal moment. Today the public is overwhelmingly behind us on this issue. In a recent poll conducted by EMC Research, over 80 percent of California voters said they are in favor of labeling genetically engineered foods.

We are writing to ask you to join us in support of the campaign.

Building a broad and diversified coalition will be essential to winning. Please add your name to the growing list of supporters of the California Right to Know Campaign. Together we can win in November, and reform our outdated food labeling laws to give consumers a real choice over how they feed their families. Included with this letter you will find: 1) 1 page informational flier about the initiative, 2) FAQ sheet, 3) the full initiative, and 4) an endorsement form. Alternatively you can endorse the initiative online:

If you have any questions, please don’t hesitate to reach me at (907) 947-6046. We look forward to working together with you in the months and year ahead.

Sincerely,

Ryan Zinn

CA Right to Know National Coalition Director

(907) 947-6046

Monsanto Corn May Be Failing to Kill Bugs, EPA Says

understandingbobdylan — Mon, 19 Dec 2011 03:52:05 +0000

December 02, 2011, 10:34 AM EST By Jack Kaskey

http://www.businessweek.com/news/2011-12-02/monsanto-corn-may-be-failing-to-kill-bugs-epa-says.html

Dec. 2 (Bloomberg) — Monsanto Co. corn that’s genetically engineered to kill insects may be losing its effectiveness against rootworms in four states, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency said.
Rootworms in Iowa, Illinois, Minnesota and Nebraska are suspected of developing tolerance to the plants’ insecticide, based on documented cases of severe crop damage and reports from entomologists, the

EPA said in a memo dated Nov. 22 and posted Nov. 30 on a government website. Monsanto’s program for monitoring suspected cases of resistance is “inadequate,” the EPA said.

“Resistance is suspected in at least some portions of four states in which ‘unexpected damage’ reports originated,” the EPA said in the memo, which reviewed damage reports.

The insects, which begin life as root-chewing grubs before developing into adult beetles, are among the most destructive corn pests, costing U.S. farmers about $1 billion a year in damages and chemical pesticides, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

Monsanto fell 2.5 percent to $72.40 at 9:54 a.m. in New York, the third-biggest decline among companies in the Standard & Poor’s 500 Index.

Greenpeace summary on Roundup

understandingbobdylan — Thu, 24 Nov 2011 05:57:43 +0000

Read this excellent resource on the dangers of Roundup:

http://www.greenpeace.org/international/Global/international/publications/agriculture/2011/363%20-%20GlyphoReportDEF-LR.pdf

Biotech giants promoting dangerous pesticides?

understandingbobdylan — Thu, 24 Nov 2011 05:54:58 +0000

http://www.theecologist.org/News/news_analysis/1122020/monsanto_bayer_and_dow_face_trial_for_systematic_human_rights_abuses.htmlThe world’s major agrochemical companies, Monsanto, Dow, Bayer, Syngenta, DuPont and BASF, will face a public tribunal in early December accused of systematic human rights violations.
They are accused of violating more than 20 instruments of international human rights law through promoting reliance on the sale and use of dangerous and unsafe pesticides including endosulfan, paraquat and neonicotinoids.
The Permanent Peoples’ Tribunal (PPT), an international opinion tribunal created in 1979, will hear expert testimony from scientists, medical doctors and lawyers to prove the charges. Victims who have been injured by these products – from farmers, farmworkers, mothers and consumers from around the world – will also testify to the causes and nature of their injuries.
The cases will be heard over a four-day trial in Bangalore, India beginning December 3. While the Tribunal has no legal weight, and cannot force sanctions on companies, it aims to expose and raise awareness of large-scale human rights violations.
Pesticides Action Network (PAN) International, a global network comprised of 600 organisations in 90 countries, has spent years collecting information to bring about the indictments and is seeking justice for more than 25 specific cases – such as Silvino Talavera, an 11-year-old from Paraguay who died days after breathing in a cloud of Monsanto’s RoundUp herbicide sprayed by a crop duster. The trial will also hear evidence of the link between pesticide use and a decline in bees.
The corporations, known as the ‘Big 6′ control 74 per cent of the global pesticide market, as well as dominating the global seed market.
Bayer reject the allegations saying they are a, ‘wholesale distortion of the role of pesticides in our society.’ Monsanto, Syngenta and Dow, after being contacted by the Ecologist, were unavailable for comment.
Pesticide poisonings
An estimated 355,000 people are believed to die each year from unintentional pesticide poisoning, according the World Health Organization. Nick Mole from PAN UK said the trial would give a voice to the otherwise voiceless victims of pesticides.
‘The pesticide industry is massive and incredibly powerful. It is difficult to prove corporate manslaughter even when these products are killing hundreds of people a year,’ he says. ‘We’ve spoken to people who have been abused and we are allowing them to give voice to their individual stories. We will be presenting the outcome of the Tribunal to the corporations and will be inviting their response,’ he says.
It is hoped that the verdict, to be delivered on December 6, will lead to greater discussions at UN institutions on holding agrochemical corporations accountable for crimes relating to the impact of their products.

Peoples’ Tribunal
The PPT grew out of the work by Italian Senator Lelio Basso, and serves as a grassroots, ad hoc court to consider charges and to issue verdicts on complaints of human rights violations submitted by victims or their representative groups.
Since 1979, the PPT has held 35 sessions exposing various forms of human rights abuses in cases from the Bhopal disaster, Tibet sovereignty and the intervention of the US in Nicaragua.

http://www.theecologist.org/News/news_analysis/1122020/monsanto_bayer_and_dow_face_trial_for_systematic_human_rights_abuses.html

http://www.agricorporateaccountability.net/en/post/media-resources/26

Review of glysophate on the books

understandingbobdylan — Thu, 24 Nov 2011 05:41:49 +0000

Safety Review of Glyphosate Herbicide Faces Tough Critics

http://gmo-journal.com/index.php/2011/11/21/safety-review-of-glyphosate-herbicide-faces-tough-critics/

By
Comment on Safety Review of Glyphosate Herbicide Faces Tough Critics” href=”http://gmo-journal.com/index.php/2011/11/21/safety-review-of-glyphosate-herbicide-faces-tough-critics/#disqus_thread”>0 Comments

Glyphosate, the non-selective herbicide that is the active ingredient in Monsanto’s Roundup formula, is up for a routine safety review in the United States and Canada. The herbicide has been used in eliminating weeds in soybeans, corn, cotton, as well as for lawn and garden maintenance since the early 1970s. “More than 2 billion lbs of herbicide were used globally in 2007, with one quarter of that total – 531 million lbs – used in the United States in that timeframe, according to a report issued in February by the EPA,” recently reported Reuters. Since at least 1996, the thirst for glyphosate was fueled in large measure by the development of glyphosate tolerant crops (e.g., Monsanto’s Roundup Ready lines), which are able to withstand continued application of this herbicide.

As more genetically engineered crops are planted, more glyphosate is used. For example, 94% of soybeans, planted on 75.2 million acres in 2011, were genetically engineered. With the government’s encouragement, in the form of subsidies for crops like soybean, corn and cotton, the nation’s glyphosate addiction intensified.

In the meantime, concerns about the impact of glyphosate on human and animal health and the environment are growing. Many scientists are alarmed, for example, about the links between glyphosate and birth defects, cancer, impact on wildlife, and environmental damage. The Center For Food Safety (”Center”) recently noted in its August 3, 2011, letter to the U.S. Secretary of Agriculture, Tom Vilsack, that:

Roundup Ready crop systems has decimated populations of milkweed in the agricultural fields of Iowa and likely other Midwestern states. This has contributed (along with other factors) to the 15-year decline in Monarch butterflies that require milkweed as a host plant for larvae (caterpillars).

Additionally, due to weed resistance caused by over reliance on glyphosate, farmers need more glyphosate and often more toxic chemicals like 2,4-D, dicamba and atrizine to control weeds (a.k.a. “superweeds”).

The Center noted that:

Glyphosate-resistant crop systems have triggered an epidemic of glyphosate-resistant weeds, which constitute one of the most serious challenges facing American farmers. Agronomists have recently sounded the alarm about weeds resistant to multiple herbicides (usually including glyphosate)

Glyphosate-resistant crop systems have triggered an epidemic of glyphosate-resistant weeds, which constitute one of the most serious challenges facing American farmers. Agronomists have recently sounded the alarm about weeds resistant to multiple herbicides (usually including glyphosate).

The Institute of Science in Society has called for a global banon glyphosate. Professor Don Huber, expressing his concern about the impact of glyphosate on soil, wrote in his public comments to the EPA, that “[b]oth the short-and long-term effects of glyphosate on soil biology are becoming serious concerns for crop production efficiency and food safety,” because the herbicide can “affect the physiological availability of nutrients for plants, and reduces nutrient availability and uptake from soil.”Similarly, Jeffrey Smith noted that:

The glyphosate molecule deprives crops of the vital minerals necessary for healthy functioning, and especially the ability to resist soilborne diseases. It annihilates soil organisms that live around the roots and help suppress disease. And it is highly toxic to plants. But the clincher is that it dramatically promotes disease-causing organisms, present in almost all soils, which overrun the weakened crops with deadly infections.

During the EPA’s review the agency said that it plans to re-evaluate the “risks from glyphosate and certain inert ingredients to humans and the environment…” Similarly, Health Canada Pest Management Regulatory Agency pesticide re-evaluation program will consider the potential risks as well as the value of pesticide products to “ensure they meet modern standards established to protect human health and the environment.”

The EPA is collecting data until summer of 2012 and a decision is expected by 2015. The Health Canada Pest Management Regulatory Agency reported that its target date for completion of glyphosate review is 2014.

Peru bans GMOs

understandingbobdylan — Sun, 13 Nov 2011 23:22:58 +0000

GMOs 10 year moratorium in Peru

Agence France-Presse
Sat, 05 Nov 2011 21:01 CDT

Lima – Peru’s Congress announced Friday it overwhelmingly approved a 10-year moratorium on imports of genetically modified organisms in order to safeguard the country’s biodiversity.

The measure bars GMOs – including seeds, livestock, and fish – from being imported for cultivation or to be raised locally.

Exceptions include the use of GMO products for research purposes in a closed environment, but those will be closely monitored, the legislature’s official news service said.

The bill, approved late Thursday, now goes to President Ollanta Humala to be signed into law. Humala, who has been in power since late July, has repeatedly said he opposes GM programs.

According to the Agriculture Ministry, Peru is one of the world’s leading exporters of organic food, including coffee and cocoa, with $3 billion a year in revenues and 40,000 certified producers.

Congress approved a similar 10-year moratorium in June, but outgoing president Alan Garcia, who was seen as being favorable to GM, did not ratify the ban.

There was friction over GM in the previous government’s ministries of agriculture and environment.

The head of Peru’s Consumer Agency, Jaime Delgado, said the moratorium is long enough to learn from scientific studies that will emerge on the effects of GMO products.

The country’s leading group representing farmers and ranchers, the National Agrarian Convention, said that by this measure Peru “defends its biodiversity, its agriculture, its gastronomy and its health.”

Action alert: write to Agriculture Canada

understandingbobdylan — Sun, 13 Nov 2011 23:18:54 +0000

Action Alert: Deadline November 25, 2011 Issued by the Canadian Biotechnology Action Network

Stop Canada from legalizing contamination from unapproved GM foods.

Write to Agriculture Canada from http://www.cban.ca/llpaction

The Canadian Government is proposing to allow contamination of our food supply with genetically engineered foods that have not been approved for safe eating in Canada. Agriculture Canada has opened a comment period until November 25, 2011.

The Canadian government wants to allow a percent, 0.1% or higher, of our food to be contaminated with genetically modified (GM, also called genetically engineered) foods that have not been approved by Health Canada for safe human consumption. The GM foods will have been approved for safety in at least one other country but not yet evaluated as safe by our own regulators. The federal government calls this “Low Level Presence” or LLP and argues that this “low level” of contamination from unapproved GM foods is not harmful.

LLP is unacceptable and unjustifiable:

- LLP is trade policy at the expense of public health. The goal of LLP is to facilitate the free flow of goods into Canada, without the restriction of safety assessment.
- LLP overthrows public health policy. LLP rejects Canada’s “science-based” regulation of GMOs because LLP assumes that GMOs are safe before evaluating the available data.
- LLP makes safety regulation irrelevant. LLP establishes an exception to the (already highly criticized and woefully inadequate) process whereby government regulators review scientific data to determine human health safety. The introduction of LLP will further undermine our international reputation for food safety as well as the confidence of Canadians in our food system.
- If LLP is introduced, it will be clear that the Canadian Government has no interest in protecting the health and safety of Canadians.

Write your letter today from http://www.cban.ca/llpaction

For more information visit http://www.cban.ca/llp

young farmers: part 2

understandingbobdylan — Thu, 03 Nov 2011 04:51:19 +0000

A couple of days back we had a post on young folk getting into farming in BC. Lo and behold, the NY Times has an article about this phenomenon in the U.S. today. So, it must be true (unless of course you agree with Noam Chomsky that the NY Times is just another mouthpiece of the U.S. administration).

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/03/garden/sheep-lawn-mowers-and-other-go-getters.html?pagewanted=2&_r=1&hp