Tag Archives: GMO’s

Your Tax Dollar – Selling Monsanto Abroad

Posted on by

Taxpayer Dollars Are Helping Monsanto Sell Seeds Abroad

—By

| Sat May. 18, 2013 3:00 AM PDT
Then-US Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton in Kenya, 2009. USAID Photo Gallery

Nearly two decades after their mid-’90s debut in US farm fields, GMO seeds are looking less and less promising. Do the industry’s products ramp up crop yields? The Union of Concerned Scientists looked at that question in detail for a 2009 study. Short answer: marginally, if at all. Do they lead to reduced pesticide use? No; in fact, the opposite.

And why would they, when the handful of companies that dominate GMO seeds—Monsanto, DuPont, Syngenta, Dow—are also among the globe’s largest pesticide makers? Monsanto’s Roundup Ready seeds have given rise to an upsurge of herbicide-resistant superweeds and a torrent of herbicides, while insects are showing resistance to its pesticide-containing Bt crops and causing farmers to boost insecticide use. What about wonder crops that would be genetically engineered to withstand drought or require less nitrogen fertilizer? So far, they haven’t panned out—and there’s little evidence they ever will.

Yet despite all of these problems, the US State Department has been essentially acting as of de facto global-marketing arm of the ag-biotech industry, complete with figures as high-ranking as former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton mouthing industry talking points as if they were gospel, a new Food & Water Watch analysis of internal documents finds.

The FWW report is based on an analysis of diplomatic cables, written between 2005 and 2009 and released in the big Wikileaks document dump of 2010. FWW sums it up: “a concerted strategy to promote agricultural biotechnology overseas, compel countries to import biotech crops and foods that they do not want, and lobby foreign governments—especially in the developing world—to adopt policies to pave the way to cultivate biotech crops.”

The report brims with examples of the US government promoting the biotech industry abroad. Here are a few:

The State Department encouraged embassies to bring visitors—especially reporters—to the United States, which has “proven to be effective ways of dispelling concerns about biotech [crops].” The State Department organized or sponsored 28 junkets from 17 countries between 2005 and 2009. In 2008, when the US embassy was trying to prevent Poland from adopting a ban on biotech livestock feed, the State Department brought a delegation of high-level Polish government agriculture officials to meet with the USDA in Washington, tour Michigan State University and visit the Chicago Board of Trade. The USDA sponsored a trip for El Salvador’s Minister of Agriculture and Livestock to visit Pioneer Hi-Bred’s Iowa facilities and to meet with USDA Secretary Tom Vilsack that was expected to “pay rich dividends by helping [the Minister] clearly advocate policy positions in our mutual bilateral interests.”

The State Department hotly pushed GMOs in low-income African nations—in the face of popular opposition.

Another example: this 2009 cable, referenced in the FWW report, shows a State Department functionary casually requesting US taxpayer funds to  to combat a popular effort to require labeling of GMO foods in Hong Kong—and boasting about successfully having done so in the past. Why focus on the GMO policy of a quasi-independent city? Hong Kong’s  rejection of a mandatory labeling policy “could have influential spillover effects in the region, including Taiwan, mainland China and Southeast Asia,” the functionary writes, adding that her consulate had “intentionally designed [anti-labeling] programs other embassies and consulates” could use.

The report also shows how the State Department hotly pushed GMOs in low-income African nations—in the face of popular opposition. In a 2009 cable, FWW shows, the US embassy in Nigeria bragged that “U.S. government support in drafting [pro-biotech] legislation as well as sensitizing key stakeholders through a public outreach program” helped pass and industry-friendly law. Working with USAID—an independent US government agency that operates under the State Department’s authority—the State Department pushed similar efforts in Kenya and Ghana, FWW shows.

Yet, as FWW points out, in so aggressively pushing biotech solutions abroad, State is bucking against the global consensus of ag-development experts as expressed by the 2009 International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development (IAASTD), a three-year project, convened by the World Bank and the United Nations and completed in 2008, to assess what forms of agriculture would best meet the world’s needs in a time of rapid climate change. The IAASTD took such a skeptical view of deregulated biotech as a panacea for the globe’s food challenges that Croplife America, the industry’s main industry lobbying group, saw fit to denounce it. The US government backed up the biotech lobby on this one—just three of the 61 governments that participated refused to sign the IAASTD: the Bush II-led United States, Canada, and Australia.

So why why are our corps of diplomats behaving as if they answered to Monsanto’s shareholders with regard to ag policy? My guess is GMO seed technology, dominated by Monsanto, as well as our towering crops corn and soy crops (which are at this point almost completely from GM seeds) are two of the few areas of global trade wherein the US still generates a trade surplus. The website of the State Department’s Biotechnology and Textile Trade Policy Division puts it like this:

In 2013, the United States is forecasted to export $145 billion in agricultural products, which is $9.2 billion above fiscal 2012 exports, and have a trade surplus of $30 billion in our agricultural sector.

I guess US presidents, Democratic and Republican alike, are bent on preserving and expanding that surplus. President Obama altered much about US foreign policy when he took over for President Bush in 2009; but he doesn’t seem to have changed a thing when it comes to pushing biotech on the global stage. And the impulse is not confined to the State Department. Back in 2009, when Obama needed to appoint someone to lead agriculture negotiations at the US Trade Office, he went straight to the ag-biotech industry, tapping the vice president for science and regulatory affairs at CropLife America, Islam A. Siddiqui, who still holds that post today.

Meanwhile, the State Department operates an Office of Agriculture, Biotechnology and Textile Trade Affairs, which exists in part to “maintain open markets for U.S. products derived from modern biotechnology” and “promote acceptance of this promising technology.” The office’s biotechnology page is larded with language that reads like boilerplate from Monsanto promo material: “Agricultural biotechnology helps farmers increase yields, enabling them to produce more food per acre while reducing the need for chemicals, pesticides, water, and tilling. This provides benefits to the environment as well as to the health and livelihood of farmers.”

 

from:    http://www.motherjones.com/tom-philpott/2013/05/us-state-department-global-marketing-arm-gmo-seed-industry

Pesticide Corps Mobilize to Back Monsanto

Posted on by

6 Largest Pesticide Corporations Funding Effort to Try to Defeat GMO Labeling Proposition 37

25th October 2012

By J. D. Heyes – naturalnews.com

In what should probably surprise no one who has been following the Proposition 37 issue, a California proposal that would require the ingredients in all GM foods to be labeled, the so-called “Big 6″ pesticide corporations have become the movement’s main opponents.

Filings released this week by the California Secretary of State’s office denote that the world’s six largest pesticide corporations have become the six biggest contributors to opponents of Prop 37. In all, they have funneled in excess of $20 million to oppose the measure which, again, would require what should already be happening: the labeling of genetically engineered or modified food. The money has especially funded an aggressive, extensive ad campaign in recent weeks.

“Pesticide corporations like Monsanto continue to enjoy unfettered and unlabeled access to the market, while consumers are left largely in the dark,” said Marcia Ishii-Eiteman, PhD, senior scientist at Pesticide Action Network. “Despite the best efforts of the big six to confuse and distort the issue, Californians have a right to know what’s in their food and how it’s grown.”

The Big 6 – Monsanto, BASF, Bayer, Dow, DuPont and Syngenta – far and away dominate the global seed and pesticide markets; they are actively opposing Prop 37. In filings released recently, each of the corporations “made contributions of at least $2 million, with Monsanto’s contribution alone totaling more than $7 million,” said PAN, in a press release.

What do the Big 6 have to hide?

The opposition really wants Prop. 37 defeated. Including Big 6 donations, so far those committed to defeating it have ponied up in excess of $37 million; they’ve spent $19 million with Sacramento public relations firms and on aggressive television advertising and paid mailings to voters.

But why? Why are companies so opposed to openness and honesty when it comes to allowing consumers the right to know what’s in the GM foods they are buying?

The answer may lie in a comprehensive study released a week ago. According to Dr. Charles Benbrook, who conducted the study using federal government data, the Big 6 likely don’t want you to know that genetically engineered crops drive up the use of dangerous pesticides while they open more markets for them as well (as usual, “follow the money”).

Benbrook found that GM crops have “increased pesticide use by over 400 million pounds in the United States over the past fifteen years,” said the PAN statement.

“Increased pesticide use has led to greater and greater weed resistance. In turn, this has led to more applications of pesticides – as well as use of more hazardous pesticides – in agricultural fields, putting rural communities and farm workers at the greatest risk of harm due to pesticide exposure,” the activist organization said.

More pesticides, more chemicals, more danger

In addition to the use of more pesticides, the control over seeds has also benefited these giant biotech companies – at the expense, of course, of consumers.

“The Big 6 chemical and seed companies are working diligently to monopolize the food system at the expense of consumers, farmers and smaller seed companies,” said Philip H. Howard, an associate professor at Michigan State University and an expert on industry consolidation.

In all, Monsanto alone controls 23 percent of the world’s seed market, while Bayer controls 20 percent of the global pesticide market.

So what’s the big deal, really? Why should GM foods be labeled anyhow?

Probably the biggest reason why is because GMOs – genetically modified organisms – in general were not created by food or agriculture companies. They were created by Monsanto – the same biotech and chemical company that brought us DDT, PCBs and Agent Orange. Monsanto also marketed aspartame and created bovine growth hormone (rBGH) to infect milking cows that put pus into commercial milk.

That’s what the big deal is.

from:     http://wakeup-world.com/2012/10/25/6-largest-pesticide-corporations-funding-effort-to-try-to-defeat-gmo-labeling-proposition-37/

It isTime to Label GMO’s Prop 37

Posted on by

Defeat Monsanto — Vote YES on Prop 37

15th October 2012

By Jack Adam Weber

Contributing Writer for Wake Up World

On November 6th this year all of us that despise GMOs and Monsanto will be waiting with bated breath for the outcome of one single proposition that, if passed, could topple the GMO empire in the United States and trickle down to other countries around the world.

Proposition 37, the California Right to Know Genetically Engineered Food Act,

is a citizen generated ballot initiative for mandatory labeling of GMO products in California. If Proposition 37 is voted in, it will:

a) Require labeling on raw or processed food offered for sale to consumers if the food is made from plants or animals with genetic material changed in specified ways.

b) Prohibit labeling or advertising such food as “natural.”

c) Exempt from this requirement foods that are “certified organic; unintentionally produced with genetically engineered material; made from animals fed or injected with genetically engineered material but not genetically engineered themselves; processed with or containing only small amounts of genetically engineered ingredients; administered for treatment of medical conditions; sold for immediate consumption such as in a restaurant; or alcoholic beverages.”

Friends, this is the moment we have been waiting for. This is our most promising opportunity to achieve what we have all been working so hard for, for so long. If we don’t win this, we may never have the chance again.

According to the Organic Consumers Association, we are currently ahead 3 to 1 in California on this vote (passing Prop 37). But we can’t rest easy. Monsanto and other biotech companies know how big this is. Recent statistics show they have already contributed some 37 million dollars to television ads full of misinformation and lies as a last-ditch effort to defeat Proposition 37. They have succeeded with these tactics in the past in other states.

We cannot let them win this time.

Many states have tried to adopt GMO labeling legislation in the past and failed because the legislation was not citizen generated and government officials cowered under threats of a lawsuit by Monsanto. The most recent was Vermont. California is the eighth largest economy in the world, if it were considered a country. Passing this legislation will set a precedent for GMO labeling in other states. Many experts say that if Prop 37 passes in California, GMO labeling might as well be a national law. This is what we want.

Believe it or not, many Americans still don’t even know what a GMO is.

When foods are labeled as GMO, even Monsanto admits it is equivalent to putting a skull and crossbones on it. Sales will plummet; the good word on bad GMOs will spread like wildfire. This is what we want, and now is our chance to deliver the fatal blow to the GMO horror machine.

90% of Americans want GMO labeling. Why don’t we have it? You know the answer—power, greed, money, lies, and corruption at the expense of our health. Let’s all do our part now to make sure the majority of Californians know what’s up. We don’t want Monsanto and friends to have any chance at winning. Here is what you can do; please do this today so that we have as much time as possible for the word to spread:

1. Send an email to everyone you know in California and tell them to vote YES ON PROP 37.

2. Post this on your FB page, along with this link to this article:

  • California friends, please vote YES on Prop 37 this November for the mandatory labeling of GMOs in our food.
  • Please tell all your California email and Facebook contacts to vote “YES on Prop 37.

3) Please join GEM (GMO Eradication Movement).

It is safe to say that the future of food, our own health, and the health of our planet hinges on this vote, now less than one month away. If we don’t win this, we will have lost a crucial chance, and perhaps our last good chance for a while. If we do win this, we will have the biggest party ever!

Please do your part, today. WE need YOU.

from:    http://wakeup-world.com/2012/10/15/defeat-monsanto-vote-yes-on-prop-37/

The Economics of Cancer

Posted on by

The Biggest Moneymaker of all Time: Cancer, and Why the Profiteers Don’t Want a Cure

17th September 2012

By Dr. Dennis Antoine

Guest Writer for Wake Up World

People wail, cry, and question why him /her, how could this happen to a child? Immeasurable grief.

Yet the answers are quite clear: humans are unknowingly exposed to far too many chemicals on their food, in their water, their clothes – even when buying a new car. That new car smell? Major cancer causing chemicals that have been used to treat the new leather and the rugs in that new car. And people get in and snort it like they smelled a bouquet of flowers.

Food sprayed with chemicals to make them last? Preservatives. At one time, you could not patent food. Yet we now have a patented soybean. Just so Monsanto can profit. This fooling around and injecting chemicals in food has got to stop!

This is why you must demand that food be labeled GMO! Go California!

Even new clothing has been treated with chemicals that can seep into the body and wreak havoc especially in young children. Not to mention the pesticides that are used on your food. What is very interesting is how many people from Monsanto wind up working for the FDA. The FDA is supposed to protect US citizens from poisons, right? Do enough of your own research and the more you learn the more outraged you will become. This is what is meant by the wolf guarding the henhouse. They eat healthy, sure. And you can bet the ranch they don’t eat the food they sell.

Dr Max Gerson, who in 1938 made a startling discovery that his safe natural treatment for cancer patients held enormous promise. He was getting people well by using something that could not be patented – vegetables. At this time in history, a bill was appropriated for 100 million dollars to anyone who could show promise and results in treating cancer. Dr Gerson in 1946 presented 5 terminal cases and 5 additional patients’ records showing his effective treatment and cure of all of these cases. Well, guess what? The Pepper-Neely bill was defeated by four senators who were medical doctors.

Also of note, radio announcer Raymond Gram Swing who was in the room, was as astonished as any of the others and made a broadcast that night detailing these events and Gerson’s effective treatment. Two 2 weeks later, Swing was fired from his job.

The following video is life changing. The angel Charlotte Gerson is still alive and living in San Diego.

Gerson died in 1959, eulogized by long-time friend, Albert Schweitzer M.D.:

I see in him one of the most eminent geniuses in the history of medicine. Many of his basic ideas have been adopted without having his name connected with them. Yet, he has achieved more than seemed possible under adverse conditions. He leaves a legacy which commands attention and which will assure him his due place. Those whom he has cured will now attest to the truth of his ideas.

Dozens of treatments have come and gone and have just as quickly been termed “not effective”. When an individual encounters a pathogen (virus, bacteria, fungus) their immunomodulators in their brain kick in to use and many different self-preservation events occur. One of the first is a fever. Almost all pathogens function best at 98.6, or normal body temperature.

The aspirin companies have convinced the public that a fever is bad. “We’ve got to break the fever” “if it gets too high we could cause brain damage”. And so this is drilled into caring parents’ minds and they immediately freak and start giving aspirin.

The body knows what it is doing and we interfere. Because we have a degree from a prestigious school and a stethoscope around our neck-we know better. But the fever is designed to make a poor quality environment for the germ, and eventually kill it off.

Instead, the aspirin, or Tylenol, does lower the temperature in some cases and the pathogen can now flourish.

The following was written by a medical doctor and comes from The Cancer Prevention Coalition: The verdict is unassailable. The American Cancer Society bears a major responsibility for losing the winnable war against cancer. Reforming the ACS is, in principle, relatively easy and directly achievable. Boycott the ACS. Instead, give your charitable contributions to public interest and environmental groups involved in cancer prevention. Such a boycott is well overdue and will send the only message this “charity” can no longer ignore. The Cancer Prevention Coalition (chaired by the author) in April 1999 formally announced a nationwide campaign for an economic boycott of the ACS .

Mammography

The American Cancer Society has close connections to the mammography industry. Five radiologists have served as ACS presidents, and in its every move, the ACS reflects the interests of the major manufacturers of mammogram machines and films, including Siemens, DuPont, General Electric, Eastman Kodak, and Piker. In fact, if every woman were to follow ACS and NCI mammography guidelines, the annual revenue to health care facilities would be a staggering $5 billion, including at least $2.5 billion for premenopausal women. Promotions of the ACS continue to lure women of all ages into mammography centers, leading them to believe that mammography is their best hope against breast cancer. A leading Massachusetts newspaper featured a photograph of two women in their twenties in an ACS advertisement that promised early detection results in a cure “nearly 100 percent of the time.” An ACS communications director, questioned by journalist Kate Dempsey, responded in an article published by the Massachusetts Women’s Community’s journal Cancer:

The ad isn’t based on a study. When you make an advertisement, you just say what you can to get women in the door. You exaggerate a point. . . . Mammography today is a lucrative [and] highly competitive business.

The way women are treated when they have a mammography is deplorable. The tender, sensitive breast is jostled around, roughly handled and placed in the device to obtain the x-ray. The already angry area (angry with cancer cells) is now irritated further, enhancing the probability and possibility of cells spreading to other parts of the body.

Not only that, the tumor has a capsule around it. All the rough movement of the breast only helps to disrupt this capsule and enhance spreading or metastasis. Want a little more irritation? Let’s biopsy the area. A needle is stuck into the balloon and cells removed. Don’t you know there will be some leakage of the cells contained in that capsule?

Lung cancer and esophageal cancers too, are extraordinarily lucrative. It is one of the more difficult cancers to treat. There are miraculous stories about using Hydrogen Peroxide in the proper form to treat the body with oxygen.

Madison Cavanaugh has written a book called The One Minute Cure detailing the effectiveness of Hydrogen Peroxide on various health problems. Get the book.

To be clear, Hydrogen Peroxide must be Food Grade, meaning NOT WHAT YOU BUY IN THE SUPERMARKET. You must find food grade at 35% and then dilute it to 3%. What they sell in the brown bottle has preservatives in it and is not meant for internal use.

Cancer despises oxygen. It also loves 98.6. And it loves fatty tissue. It’s nirvana for the cancer cells. Cancer also has a unique capability to do what is called angiogenesis – it makes it’s own blood vessels to bring more blood and more food to feed it’s crazy appetite. It has this appetite because it is making cells at such a rapid pace.

Sugar is perfect fuel for cancer. High fructose corn syrup is a form of sugar that is ideal, as the high mitotic rate (cell division and tumor growth) calls for energy.

So here we have the “perfect storm”- you take a body, make it overweight – eat low quality food with all kinds of chemicals in the food and expose that person to fluoride in water, or vaccinations (additional cancer causing chemicals), air pollution, barbecued food (additional carcinogens) nitrates and nitrites, second hand smoke, etc and voila! You have a good potential to develop cancer.

Not everyone takes the cheese of standard treatment however, because there are alternatives to treating even difficult esophageal cancer as evidenced by this next video:

Tumors – Let’s pretend you were away and when you came home your home was extremely hot. You go to the thermostat an turn on the air conditioner. Nothing happens.

Would you then rip the thermostat out of the wall, thinking, “Well that should fix it”?

Of course not. This is what we do when we cut out a tumor. The tumors purpose just may be a “thermostat” a way to measure the presence of sickness. What if the tumor was only an indicator and not a sign of imminent death?

In so many cases, when treated successfully, there are reports of tumors shrinking and disappearing.

So what we do in America, we cut the tumor out. And the wonderful surgeon tells the family “I think we got it all”. Since cells are so vastly small, how could anyone, even with a microscope know for sure that they “got it all?” There is not a physician on the planet that could know for 100% sure they were able to “get it all”.

As a matter of fact, what if the tumors actually served a purpose and acted as indicators to tell us whether improvement is taking place? After all, unless the tumor is pressing on an airway or blood vessel, why take a chance and cut a person open who is already in a challenged state? And leave them susceptible to infection. Many people die from secondary infections due to the immunosuppresion of their bodies brought on by the side effects of chemotherapy. The radiation kills healthy cells. Cancer does not make hair fall out; radiation does that. And poor appetite causing poor nourishment? Caused by the drugs. So how can a body stay healthy if they are not getting proper nourishment?

This does not have to be. This is exactly where Dr Gerson was going. Take away the irritants (bad food, poor quality fluoridated water, fats, and sugars) and introduce ingredients the body can use to fight with-clean water-a healthy liver-vegetables-nutrients, and proper health can be restored.

This is a small sampling of incredible alternatives to fight cancer. The reason hemp is outlawed? Henry Ford many years ago said we should be using hemp for almost anything you can imagine –  more and better use than cutting down all the trees and insulting the earth with mining. Greed is why hemp is outlawed. It is a very powerful solution to a number of health problems.

Rick Simpson in his video Run From the Cure discusses his very effective treatment for cancer-hemp oil.

The suppression of this information is criminal.

Please read Death By Medicine. Gary Null PhD, Carolyn Dean MD ND Martin Feldman MD, Debora Rasio MD, Dorothy Smith PhD

This is not about bad mouthing anyone. There are better things to do with time. It is about exposing the truth. There are many fine, caring physicians. When a person experiences a trauma from an accident, a severe laceration, by all means, of course you require medical treatment. Let’s not mix compassion with profit. Medicine started out based on compassion. First, do no harm, right? We should prevent what we treat? Where are we now? Big Pharma sends their beautiful reps to doctors’ offices to convince them of how they should be getting more people on this drug or that one, despite side effects. It’s for profit and it is deplorable and sad.

Be aware of your rights; don’t be badgered or scared into doing what “everyone else is doing” only to wind up a statistic. Do your research now while you’re healthy. Don’t wait until you are in a crisis mode. Stay healthy. Grow your own vegetables. Drink purified water. Take nutrients. Question authority. And by all means Wake Up World!

Dr. Dennis Antoine

from:    http://wakeup-world.com/2012/09/17/the-biggest-moneymaker-of-all-time-cancer-and-why-the-profiteers-dont-want-a-cure/

Monsanto & the EU

Posted on by

Monsanto Promises Pain to EU, Assault Underway

July 10 2012

Story at-a-glance

  • The European Commission has issued a proposal to drop the policy of zero tolerance for unapproved and untested GMOs in food; the proposal suggests setting a threshold below which contaminated imports could enter Europe’s food chain
  • In 2011, the EU decided to allow contamination with up to 0.1 percent of unapproved and untested GMOs in animal feed, which was previously not allowed
  • France recently asked the European Commission to suspend Monsanto’s authorization to plant genetically modified MON 810 corn, but the EU stepped in and blocked the ban
  • GM opponents are urging the EU to reject the proposals, noting the pressure to drop their zero tolerance policy regarding GM contamination is coming from the U.S. government, the WTO (World Trade Organization) and the biotech industry

By Dr. Mercola

The European Union (EU) has historically taken a strict, cautious stance regarding genetically modified (GM) crops, much to the chagrin of Monsanto and in stark contract to the United States.

For instance, while GM crops are banned in several European countries, and all genetically modified foods and ingredients have to be labeled, this is in stark contrast to the U.S., where Monsanto has effectively restricted any unfavorable legal actions because of the massive conflict they have with federal regulatory agencies.

Recently Connecticut and Vermont where ready to pass statewide GMO labeling requirements but backed out at the last minute when biotech giant Monsanto threatened to sue them if it was passed.

As a result, the U.S. has only recently begun passing legislation that protects the use of GM seeds and allows for unabated expansion, in addition to the fact that GM ingredients do not have to be labeled.

It’s quite clear that the U.S. government, which is closely tied to Monsanto, has been aiding and abetting Monsanto’s tireless and often ruthless quest to control the world’s food crops.

U.S. diplomatic cables released by WikiLeaks, showed the government even conspired to find ways to retaliate against Europe for refusing to use GM seeds, mainly by engaging in aggressive trade wars against reluctant nations.i As you might suspect, the EU has been under heavy pressure to add some slack to their GM regulations – and it seems they are about to cave …

EU Proposes to Drop Zero Tolerance Policy

The European Commission has issued a proposal to drop the policy of zero tolerance for unapproved and untested GMOs in food. The proposal suggests setting a threshold below which contaminated imports could enter Europe’s food chain.

This is similar to the EU’s move in 2011 … they once had a zero tolerance policy regarding GM contamination from unapproved GMOs in animal feed, but last year decided to allow contamination with up to 0.1 percent of such materials. At the time, Greenpeace EU agriculture policy adviser Stefanie Hundsdorfer said:ii

“If the safety of a GM crop has not been tested in Europe, it should not be allowed. Setting a tolerance threshold, however low, is a sign that Europe is losing control over its own food production to please American exporters. The danger now is that EU countries come under pressure from the pro-GM lobby to also allow GM contamination in food products for direct human consumption.”

And, alas, that moment has come, just over one year later. Several GM opponents are urging the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, Secretary of State Caroline Spelman to reject the proposals, noting:iii

“Pressure to drop the zero tolerance policy comes from the US government, the WTO and the biotech industry.”

EU Blocks France’s Ban on GM Corn

France recently asked the European Commission to suspend Monsanto’s authorization to plant genetically modified MON 810 corn, citing “significant risks for the environment” shown in recent scientific studies (Germany has also banned the cultivation of MON 810 corn).

The EU stepped in and blocked the ban, which was an unsettling move to put it mildly, considering that in a leaked cable from 2007, Craig Stapleton, who was the U.S. ambassador to France at the time, commented on France’s plan to ban the cultivation of GM corn, and stated that retaliation would occur:

“Europe is moving backwards not forwards on this issue with France playing a leading role, along with Austria, Italy and even the [European] Commission… Moving to retaliation will make clear that the current path has real costs to EU interests and could help strengthen European pro-biotech voice.

… Country team Paris recommends that we calibrate a target retaliation list that causes some pain across the EU since this is a collective responsibility, but that also focuses in part on the worst culprits. The list should be measured rather than vicious and must be sustainable over the long term, since we should not expect an early victory.”

UK Also Moving Full Steam Ahead with GMOs

to read more, go to:    http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2012/07/10/drop-gmo-zero-tolerance-policy.aspx?e_cid=20120710_DNL_artNew_2

Oh, No, Bono!

Posted on by

Doomsday Bloody Doomsday: Why Is Bono Supporting the G8’s GMO Initiative That Will F#&% Africa?

bono.jpg
Claiming that the continent of Africa is to this century what North America was to the 19th, U2 frontman Bono has become one of the biggest supporters of the recently announced G8 initiative that’s sending $22 billion dollars in aid, supplied mostly by multi-national corporate conglomerates, to “lift Africa out of poverty” over the next ten years. One of the biggest tools being leveraged in this plan will be the use of controversial agricultural practices-mainly non-native genetically modified crops and the accompanying fertilizers and pesticides-under the moniker The New Alliance for Food Security and Nutrition. Companies that have pledged their dollars and support through NAFSN include: DuPont, Monsanto, Cargill, Syngenta, Kraft, and Unilever.

According to the White House, the G8’s announcement of NAFSN represents the “next phase of our shared commitment to achieving global food security.” Under the guise of working with Africa’s leaders to develop transparent “country-regulated” policies for food security, in his G8 speech, his ONE organization’s blog, his interview with MSNBC’s Andrea Mitchell, and in an article he wrote for TIME magazine aptly titled “The Resource Miracle,” Bono repeatedly and not-so-subtly hints to the wealth of minerals laying just underneath the feet of Africans.

In his speech at the G8 summit held in May in Chicago, Bono jokingly refers to the African continent as “richer than rich; like 19th century America with elephants,” adding that “the continent that contains the most poverty also contains the most wealth.” Be that precious metals, gems or even (god help us) more oil-the message is a simple one to decode: Feed Africans and they will make you lots of money. (Besides, the Chinese are already over there doing it.)

Wal-mart, says Bono, has already invested more than $2 billion in development in Africa. And while he consistently avoids talking specifically about the plans NAFSN has to tackle the poverty issue, he does say the efforts are “way, way smarter” due to “the advances in science and technology.” One only need to look at the companies funding the plan to read between the lines.

African countries have slowly begun opening the door to genetic modification in recent years. Just 40 years ago, African nations exported more than 1 million tons of food, but now, due to drought, war and famine, the continent must import more than 25 percent of its food supplies. And once staunchly resistant to the technology, countries including Kenya and South Africa now permit GMOs to help tackle their poverty and starvation issues. The multinational biotech companies, of course, see dollar signs all over the continent-not just in being able to sell peasant farmers patented gene technology and companion products-but also in the many resources Bono speaks to: Sixty percent of Africa is arable land, which could make it one of the premier biotech testing grounds in the world. What lies underneath the soil-the metals, minerals and oil-all have uses for the industry as well, from petroleum-based fertilizers to pesticide development and fuel for the trucks that transport and spray them.

If history is any indicator, what has happened to other areas of the developing world when genetically modified organisms are introduced as a means to sidestepping poverty, malnutrition and disease is no miracle. Hundreds of thousands of Indian cotton farmers have (and continue to) commit suicide because of failure to meet crop yield expectations and therefore failing to pay Monsanto and Bayer CropScience for what is, effectively, a highly faulty product.

More than 5 million Brazilian farmers are currently in the midst of a lawsuit tangle with Monsanto over unrealistic royalty expectations on crops, including genetically modified soy and corn, which have quickly outpaced the growth of non-GMO crops in the South American country, but at a cost the farmers claim was misrepresented and unrealistic. Not to mention that the rapid growth of GMOs in Brazil have been intrinsically linked with irreparable destruction of the Amazon rainforest and the vital species and cultures that have thrived in the world’s most important ecosystem since it first sprouted eons ago.

Hybrid Monsanto seeds given to post-earthquake Haiti failed to produce crops and led to uprisings in the streets with protestors burning the faulty Monsanto seeds. Even here on American soil, farmers repeatedly find themselves struggling to meet yield expectations, battling Monsanto lawsuits over seed-saving or patent infringement if crops drift from neighboring farms, all while pests and weeds become more and more resistant to the harmful pesticides that the farmers were told they’d be able to decrease use of over time.

Over the last three decades, Bono has built a reputation as a humanitarian, an environmentalist, and a responsible artist. He helped build the ONE organization, which according to their website, is “a grassroots advocacy and campaigning organization that fights extreme poverty and preventable disease, particularly in Africa.” He and his wife were pioneers in environmentally-friendly clothing (Edun) that encourages ethical trade in Africa, and even his band’s music has come to overtly encourage listeners to live compassionate, authentic, and joyful lives-overcoming personal and global transgressions together.

Intending to combat the extreme conditions in Africa-drought, blights, poor soil quality, etc-the NAFSN roster of corporations continually make claims that GMO crops can handle these very issues, when similar circumstances repeatedly prove otherwise. This is why it’s most confusing that Bono would be so vocal about supporting such controversial agricultural methods. When the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation announced support of biotechnology, it was disheartening, yes, but almost expected. The Microsoft guru is known for glitchy software and a generally geeky level of oversight.

But Bono was once the voice for the counterculture. He encouraged rising against the forces-political or corporate-that won’t ever really take anyone’s best interest to heart, no matter what kind of pandering they do. So why isn’t he supporting organic farming and the further development of empowering community models like Fair Trade-both of which have shown tremendously effective and long-lasting results-instead of faulty, toxic and greedy mechanisms like genetically modified crops?

In his TIME article, Bono writes, “If I’ve learned anything in more than 25 years of making noise about this stuff, it’s that partnership trumps paternalism,” but that’s exactly what he’s supporting: a paternalistic corporate-political blunderbuss of misinformation and misguided intentions. Bono once asked the anthemic question, “How long must we sing this song?” Longer still, it seems…longer still.

from:    http://www.realitysandwich.com/why_bono_supporting_gmo_initiative

Genetic Engineers Report on GMO’s

Posted on by

Genetic Engineers Publish Damning Evidence-based Report About GMO Food

2nd July 2012

By – anh-europe.org

A damning new evidence-based report about genetically modified organisms (GMO’s) has just been published – and it reveals that most of the claims made by the pro-GM camp are nothing more than hot air.

Genetic engineers on genetic modification of food

This comprehensive and fascinating report, published by non-governmental organisation Earth Open Source, is entitled GMO Myths and Truths: An evidence-based examination of the claims made for the safety and efficacy of genetically modified crops.

What makes it so powerful is that two of the authors are genetic engineers – Michael Antoniou PhD, of King’s College London School of Medicine in the UK, and John Fagan PhD, a leading sustainability expert in food system, biosafety, and GMO testing, and founder/chief scientific officer of the Global Id Group.

Dispelling the GM myths

 

The report effectively dismisses the “far reaching claims” used as the basis for extensive promotion of GMO crops by the biotech industry, governments and government agencies and proponents of GMO technology.  It reveals that the exact opposite of the pro-GM claims is true pretty much universally. Most notably, the reports shows that GMOs are associated with hazards to health and the environment – none of which comes as a surprise to those of us who have been following GMO developments closely.

Rather than representing the solution to world hunger, GMOs, according to these authors, not only fail to deal with the problem, but they also distract from its real causes: “Poverty, lack of access to food and, increasingly, lack of access to land to grow it on”.

Traditional plant breeding outperforms GM

The report provides evidence that conventional plant breeding outperforms GM crops in terms of yield, drought tolerance, disease and pest resistance – all of which confirms the findings of a 30-year study comparing organic with conventional farming methods, including GMOs. GMO-free farming is absolutely able to meet our present and future food needs, without all the risks and damage being wreaked by GMO technology!

The new report also echoes the findings of 400 scientists from 60 countries who concluded, back in 2008, that GMOs were no solution to food shortages in the developing world. This research was detailed in the UN’s International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development (IAASTD) report.

The 2008 report concluded that GM raises numerous contentious issues for developing countries, such as gene transfer, contamination of organic crops, undermining of local practices, reduced food security and unpredictable or reduced yields.

The biotech industry and government agencies must now be answerable

Opposition to GMO technology can no longer be dismissed as emotional anti-science or pseudoscience.  With every uncomfortable truth and dirty trick now exposed by solid science from genetic engineers themselves, GMO food and agriculture now looks less like an impressive, modern technology, and more like a dangerous and foolhardy con trick designed to secure ownership of the world’s food supply for highly unscrupulous and unethical corporations.

Call to Action

  • Select organically certified foods or others guaranteed to be free of GM ingredients 
  • Support the Californian ballot initiative campaign, which, if it successfully forces mandatory labelling of GM foods in California, has the potential to cause a domino effect across other states in the USA.  This is critical because US citizens, without their informed consent, have become the biggest consumers of GM-containing foods anywhere in the world
  • Let your elected representatives know about this new, comprehensive, evidence-based report written by genetic engineers, and express your concern about the mounting evidence of harm to human health and the environment from GMOs
  • Stay informed on the GM issue, and share our stories widely.  See the summary of our concerns on our Say NO to GM campaign page

from:   http://wakeup-world.com/2012/07/02/genetic-engineers-publish-damning-evidence-based-report-about-gmo-food/

Brazilian Farmers Defeat Monsanto

Posted on by

Five Million Brazilian Farmers Take on Monsanto and Win $2 Billion

15th June 2012

By  – timesofindia.indiatimes.com

Five million Brazilian farmers have taken on US based biotech company Monsanto through a lawsuit demanding return of about 6.2 billion euros taken as royalties from them. The farmers are claiming that the powerful company has unfairly extracted these royalties from poor farmers because they were using seeds produced from crops grown from Monsanto’s genetically engineered seeds, reports Merco Press.

In April this year, a judge in the southern Brazilian state of Rio Grande do Sul, ruled in favor of the farmers and ordered Monsanto to return royalties paid since 2004 or a minimum of $2 billion. The ruling said that the business practices of seed multinational Monsanto violate the rules of the Brazilian Cultivars Act (No. 9.456/97). Monsanto has appealed against the order and a federal court ruling on the case is now expected by 2014.

About 85% of Brazil’s massive soyabean crop output is produced from genetically engineered seeds. Brazil exports about $24.1 billion worth of soyabeans annually, more than a quarter of its total agri-exports.

Farmers say that they are using seeds produced many generations after the initial crops from the genetically modified Monsanto seeds were grown. Farmers claim that Monsanto unfairly collects exorbitant profits every year worldwide on royalties from “renewal” seed harvests. Renewal crops are those that have been planted using seed from the previous year’s harvest. Monsanto disagrees, demanding royalties from any crop generation produced from its genetically-engineered seed. Because the engineered seed is patented, Monsanto not only charges an initial royalty on the sale of the crop produced, but a continuing two per cent royalty on every subsequent crop, even if the farmer is using a later generation of seed.

The first transgenic soy seeds were illegally smuggled into Brazil from neighboring Argentina in 1998 and their use was banned and subject to prosecution until the last decade, according to the state-owned Brazilian Enterprise for Agricultural Research (EMBRAPA).The ban has since been lifted and now 85 percent of the country’s soybean crop (25 million hectares or 62 million acres) is genetically modified, Alexandre Cattelan, an EMBRAPA researcher told Merco Press. Brazil is the world’s second largest producer and exporter of soyabean. China is one of its biggest buyers.

“Monsanto gets paid when it sell the seeds. The law gives producers the right to multiply the seeds they buy and nowhere in the world is there a requirement to pay (again). Producers are in effect paying a private tax on production,” Jane Berwanger, lawyer for the farmers told the media agencies.

Source – timesofindia.indiatimes.com

from:    http://wakeup-world.com/2012/06/14/five-million-brazilian-farmers-take-on-monsanto-and-win-2-billion/

(Note:  While not necessarily a step towards banning GMO seeds, it does show that governments are becoming aware of certain illegal and predatory practices used by Monsanto.)

Mom’s Call To Action Against GMO’s

Posted on by

Mom Turned Activist Launches National Movement to Boycott GMOs

22nd June 2012

By Katherine Paul – Organic Consumers Association

Diana Reeves was furious when her state legislators caved into threats by Monsanto to sue the state of Connecticut if it passed a GMO labeling law. Lawmakers effectively told Connecticut’s voters, who had clearly expressed overwhelming support for GMO labeling, “oh well.”

Unlike her gutless state legislators who rolled over, Reeves is determined to keep the fight for transparency in GMO ingredients alive – and she’s taking her fight national. She’s started a group called GMO Free USA which plans to pressure food manufacturers into revealing which of their products contain GMOs. The ultimate goal is to organize national boycotts of those companies that refuse to switch to non-GMO ingredients.

GMO Free USA is Reeves’ first foray into activism. The mother of three was on the fast track at a major accounting firm when her son was diagnosed with cancer. She walked away from her job to take care of him.

“I never looked back,” she said. Her son died before he turned five.

“This is one of those things that act as a catalyst, that bring people together,” Reeves said. “You learn to live with it, to try to make some good come of it, to find better ways to channel the grief.”

Having lost one child to disease, and with two daughters who were also suffering from health problems, Reeves became increasingly interested in the relationship between food and health,  About 4 or 5 years ago, she began reading about the potential hazards of GMO. “I started sending emails to my friends, telling them to ‘say no to GMOs,” she said. “I was probably driving them all crazy.”

Then a few months ago, a friend introduced her to NonGMO Hartford, which eventually led to her involvement with the Connecticut Right to Know group which was pushing for a state labeling law. She began distributing information, and campaigning for HB 5117, which included a provision for mandatory GMO labeling.

With overwhelming public support for the Connecticut GMO labeling law, Reeves and others were sure it would pass. But at the last minute, under threat of a lawsuit by Monsanto, the bill was eviscerated behind closed doors, and the labeling provision removed before it was voted on by the House.

“I was so angry that our legislators didn’t do their job,  that they didn’t stand up to the corporations – especially because the majority of voters wanted this law,” Reeves said.

Just as she had channeled her grief, Reeves now channeled her anger. She decided that if the government wasn’t going to do its job, she would go directly after the food manufacturers.

She started GMO Free USA. The group’s first task is to attract a significant number of like-minded members (5,000+). Once they reach that critical mass, they’ll identify one company per week, and members will bombard that company with emails. The emailers will express concern about the health risks of GMOs, ask the company if they are sourcing GMO ingredients, and express their intent to boycott their products unless the GMOs are removed.

“We’re going to hit them from every angle,” Reeves said. “It’s going to be thousands of people speaking directly to food manufacturers.”

In order to make their voices heard by companies with very high sales volume, Reeves said they will need to mobilize thousands of people to act independently. So they’re trying to find a minimum of 5000 people who will commit to the campaign, before they begin emailing food manufacturers.

“The more people who join this consumer email initiative, the more powerful the campaign will be,” she said.

Anyone who wants to get involved in this national campaign can sign up on Facebook or Yahoo Groups.

For related articles and more information, please visit OCA’s Genetic Engineering page, Millions Against Monsanto page

from:    http://wakeup-world.com/2012/06/22/mom-turned-activist-launches-national-movement-to-boycott-gmos/

Dr. Mercola on Cancer Causing Foods

Posted on by

New Evidence Against These Cancer-Causing Foods – And the Massive Cover-Up Effort

June 09 2012

Story at-a-glance

  • The World According to Monsanto explains how the biotech giant threatens to destroy the agricultural biodiversity that has served mankind for thousands of years
  • Glyphosate, the active ingredient in Monsanto’s broad-spectrum herbicide Roundup, has been deemed a major health hazard to the environment, and to animal- and human health. A French research team that has studied Roundup extensively has concluded it is toxic to human cells, and likely carcinogenic to humans
  • A recent safety review, which determined that “the available literature shows no solid evidence linking glyphosate exposure to adverse developmental or reproductive effects,” was in fact funded by Monsanto itself
Here is the link for the video:  “The World According to Monsanto”:    http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=Rml_k005tsU

By Dr. Mercola

The World According to Monsanto is an absolutely brilliant documentary  that should be on the required viewing list of virtually everyone on the planet.  While it’s already a few years old, the information it contains will remain current until we stop allowing genetically engineered crops to be planted altogether.

The film explains how the biotech giant Monsanto threatens to destroy the agricultural biodiversity that has served mankind for thousands of years.  I must warn you though; it may bring tears to your eyes as you learn how they have decimated so many lives and part of the environment through their morally bankrupt behavior.

A Hostile Takeover of Our Food Supply

For millennia, farmers have saved seeds from season to season. Genetically engineered seeds have completely altered the agricultural landscape, as these seeds are patented, which means farmers must purchase new seed for each planting season and are not allowed to share or save any of the seed.

Doing so equates to patent infringement, and Monsanto has become notorious for tracking down and prosecuting farmers who end up with patented crops in their fields without having paid the prerequisite fees—even when their conventional or organic crops are contaminated by unwanted genetically engineered (GE) seed spread by wind or pollinating insects from neighboring farms that grow GE crops.

To do this, Monsanto relies on a shadowy army of private investigators and agents who secretly videotape and photograph farmers, store owners, and co-ops. They infiltrate community meetings, and gather information from informants about farming activities. Some Monsanto agents pretend to be surveyors. Others confront farmers on their land and try to pressure them to sign papers giving Monsanto access to their private records. Farmers call them the “seed police” and use words such as “Gestapo” and “Mafia” to describe their tactics.

For nearly all of its history the United States Patent and Trademark Office refused to grant patents on seeds, viewing them as life-forms with too many variables to be patented.

But in 1980 the U.S. Supreme Court allowed for seed patents in a five-to-four decision, laying the groundwork for a handful of corporations to begin taking control of the world’s food supply. Since the 1980s, Monsanto has become the world leader in genetic engineering and modification of seeds; many, if not most of which are “Roundup Ready,” meaning they can withstand otherwise lethal doses of the herbicide Roundup, also created and sold by Monsanto.

Most Commonly Used Herbicide Found to be Carcinogenic

As if the health hazards of genetically altered food crops weren’t bad enough, glyphosate, the active ingredient in Roundup, has also been deemed a major health hazard both to the environment, and to animal- and human health. It is toxic to human cells, and according to a French research team, it is also carcinogenic. The team has studied the herbicide extensively, and published at least five articles on glysphosate’s potential for wide-ranging environmental and human harmi. Their research shows that glyphosate:

  • Causes cell cycle dysregulation, which is a hallmark of tumor cells and human cancers
  • Inhibits DNA synthesis in certain parts of the cell cycle—the process by which cells reproduce that underlies the growth and development of all living organisms
  • Impedes the hatchings of sea urchins. (Sea urchins were used because they constitute an appropriate model for the identification of undesirable cellular and molecular targets of pollutants.) The delay was found to be dose dependent on the concentration of Roundup. The surfactant polyoxyethylene amine (POEA), another major component of Roundup, was also found to be highly toxic to the embryos when tested alone, and could therefore be a contributing factor

Monsanto-Funded Research Finds “No Evidence” of Harm from Roundup

It doesn’t matter that the Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health recently published “research” to the contraryii, the French team says―the world needs to know the truth about who did that “safety-finding” research.  It was funded by none other than Monsanto itself! Is it any wonder they came to the conclusion that:

“[T]he available literature shows no solid evidence linking glyphosate exposure to adverse developmental or reproductive effects at environmentally realistic exposure concentrations.” 

The new Monsanto-funded safety research actually used the French team’s original research to debunk the evidence that Roundup could have human or environmental safety issues. And that didn’t sit well with the French team, which was so angered they wrote a detailed response to Monsanto’s article, accusing the researchers of minimalizing the French group’s work and publishing misleading information.

One of the Monsanto-backed team’s major flaws was their total disregard for the scientific context within which their glysphosate research was performed―namely, the DNA-damaging and carcinogenic potential of the chemical.

Furthermore:

“The second flaw was the claim that their results were “not environmentally relevant” (repeated 5 times in the article), despite the fact that the French researchers were able to demonstrate toxicity in 100% of the individual cells at short exposure time below the usage concentration (20 mM) of the herbicide in present agricultural applications. They elaborated on this point further:

“Therefore, regarding the considerable amount of glyphosate-based product sprayed worldwide, the concentration of Roundup in every single micro droplet is far above the threshold concentration that would activate the cell cycle checkpoint. (2) The effects we demonstrate were obtained by a short exposure time (minutes) of the cells to glyphosate-based products, and nothing excludes that prolonged exposure to lower doses may also have effects.

Since glyphosate is commonly found present in drinking water in many countries, low doses with long exposure by ingestion are a fact. The consequences of this permanent long term exposure remain to be further investigated but cannot just be ignored,” GreenMedInfo.com reportsiii:

Monsanto Guilty of Falsely Advertising Roundup as Safe

 for more, go to:    http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2012/06/09/monsanto-roundup-found-to-be-carcinogenic.aspx?e_cid=20120609_DNL_art_1