Sunday 31 July 2011

Bill McKibben: Bring Your Obama Buttons: Momentum Builds for White House Tar Sands Action

By Bill McKibben
I know that there been some bitterness in the blogosphere in recent weeks between those who are mad at President Obama, and those who are mad at those who are mad at President Obama.

I want to tell you about an upcoming action -- it looks set to turn into the biggest civil disobedience protest in the history of the North American climate movement. It will take place at the White House from August 20-Sept. 3, and we need your help spreading the word. But I want to explain the reasoning behind it in some detail, because for me it helps illustrate how some of the debate about Obama is unproductive.

First, the issue: the Canadians are proposing to build a huge new pipeline from their tar sands in Alberta down to the Gulf of Mexico. It's disastrous for native lands in the far north (check out this video from the wonderful Cree activist Melina Laboucan) and it will doubtless cause horrible spills much like last week's disaster on the Yellowstone River.

But there's a bigger problem here too. Those Alberta tar sands are the biggest carbon bomb on the continent -- indeed, on the whole planet, only Saudi Arabia's oil deposits are bigger. Some of you have followed the work fo 350.org, and know that above 350 parts per million co2 in the atmosphere you can't have, in the words of NASA climatologist James Hansen, "a planet similar to the one on which civilization evolved and to which life on earth is adapted." We're already at 390 ppm, which is why last year, according to Weather Underground's Jeff Masters, we had the most extreme weather the planet has seen at least since the great volcanic eruption of 1816. But the tar sands of Alberta will make it impossibly worse: if you could burn all that oil at once, you'd add 200 parts per million co2 to the atmosphere, and send the planet's temperature skyrocketing upwards. Any serious exploitation of the tar sands, says Hansen, means it's "essentially game over" for the climate. So, high stakes. And don't think that the Canadians will automatically find some other route to send their oil out to, say, China. Native tribes are doing a great job of blocking a proposed pipe to the Pacific; Alberta's energy minister said recently that he stays up nights worrying that without Keystone his province will be 'landlocked in bitumen.' Without the pipeline, said the business pages of Canada's biggest paper, Alberta oil faces a 'choke point.'


View the Original article

Saturday 30 July 2011

Agriculture Leaders Convene to Strenthen the Organic Seed Systems in the Southeast

By Kristina Hubbard
Agricultural leaders from the Southeast recently convened to lay the groundwork for strengthening the region's organic seed systems.

Organic Seed Alliance's advisory services director Dan Hobbs, along with board members Tony Kleese and Ira Wallace, hosted an exploratory meeting in April 2011 with university personnel, extension agents, NGOs, and farmers. Five states were represented in this meeting. Hobbs shared OSA's past success in supporting the development of regional seed systems that provide for the diverse needs of organic farmers. A brainstorming session followed, where the group identified and discussed the following objectives for this project:

- Building infrastructure to facilitate commercial-scale organic seed production - Developing new and improved vegetable varieties - Encouraging better coordination among growers and buyers

Special interest was expressed in breeding for vegetables and cover crops adapted to agricultural conditions of the Southeast, cooperative seed development, and educational opportunities.


View the Original article

Friday 29 July 2011

Kenya: The Shocking Reality About GMOs

By Dave Opiyo
Nairobi - The specter of people developing new and strange allergies, indigenous seeds losing their genetic codes and disappearing altogether, farmers making bumper harvests -- or no harvests at all -- is in the air.

Two weeks ago on July 1, Kenya became the fourth African nation to permit imports of GMO crops, joining South Africa, Egypt and Burkina Faso.

Supporters of the move say it is essential in helping to stabilize prices and feed millions of hungry Kenyans, but matters are not that straightforward.

The online encyclopedia Wikipedia defines a genetically modified or genetically engineered organism (GEO) as one "whose genetic material has been altered using genetic engineering techniques."

These techniques, generally known as recombinant DNA technology, explains the encyclopaedia, use DNA molecules from different sources, which are then combined into one molecule to create a new set of genes.

This DNA is then transferred into an organism, giving it modified or novel genes. Transgenic organisms, adds Wikipedia, are a subset of GMO organisms which have DNA that originated in a different species.

To put it more clearly, think of an orange with tomato genes. The coming into force of the Bio-Safety Act, 2009 on July 1 that allows the growing and sale of genetically modified crops has elicited mixed reactions.

GMOs are modified in the laboratory to enhance desired traits such as increased resistance to herbicides or improved nutritional content.

But, as expected, anti-GMO lobbyists have kicked up a storm, saying the safety of genetically engineered crops has not been proven beyond reasonable doubt.


View the Original article

Thursday 28 July 2011

Upcoming SoCal Millions Against Monsanto Events

As part of OCA's Millions Against Monsanto Truth-in-LabelingCampaign we are encouraging activists in our network to plan their own campaignevent with others in their area. This email is to inform you that there is anupcoming event near you, organized by grassroots organizers who care about theGE-labeling issue as much as you do.

 

Food Activist Pamm Larry, who is spearheading the effort toget GMO Labeling on the California Ballot in 2012 (labelGMOs.org), is speakingat a series of informational events in your area.


These meetings are for activists to come together to learn about theinitiative, how we suggest being activists in your community and organizinginto a new cohesive group. We will be asking for folks to think aboutcommittees they want to be on and assign a point person.

 

Pasadena

Thursday,July 14 - 7:30pm - 9:00pm

BeantownCoffee Bar, 45 North Baldwin Ave, SierraMadre

 

SantaBarbara

Monday, July 25 - 7:00pm - 8:30pm

Holistic Health Center of SB, 411 E. Canon Perdido, Suite 17, Santa Barbara

 

W. LosAngeles

Saturday, July 30 - 3:00pm - 4:30pm

Planet Raw, 609Broadway St, Santa Monica

 

ThousandOaks

Sunday, July 31 - 4:00pm - 5:00pm

Pizza Salad, 1655 E.Thousand Oaks Blvd #104, Thousand Oaks

 

Otherevents:

 

Pasadena - Free Movie - The Future of Food

Wednesday,July 13 - 7:30pm - 9:30pm

MemorialPark, 222 W. Sierra Madre Blvd,Sierra Madre (Pasadena)

 

ThousandOaks - Rally to Label GMOs

Saturday,July 16 - 11:00am - 1:00pm

Corner of TO Blvd and Moorpark, ThousandOaks

Bringa sign, a hat and some water. 

View the Original article

Wednesday 27 July 2011

One Ton of CO2 Emission Equals $900 Climate Damage

By Douglas Fischer
For related articles and more information, please visit OCA's Environment and Climate Resource page, Organic Transitions page, and our Politics and Democracy page.

Uncle Sam's estimate of the damage caused by each ton of carbon dioxide is fundamentally flawed and "grossly understates" the potential impacts of climate change, according to an analysis released Tuesday by a group of economists.

The study found the true cost of those emissions to be far beyond the $21 per ton derived by the federal government.

The figure, commonly known as the "social cost of carbon," is used by federal agencies when weighing the costs and benefits of emissions-cutting regulations, such as air conditioner efficiency standards and greenhouse gas emissions limits for light trucks.

A truer value, according to the Economics for Equity and the Environment Network, an organization of economists who advocate for environmental protection, could be as high as $900 per ton - equivalent to adding $9 to each gallon of gas. Viewed another way, with the United States emitting the equivalent of close to 6 million tons of carbon dioxide annually, the higher figure suggests that avoiding those emissions could save the nation $5.3 trillion annually, one-third of the nation's economic output. 'Dramatic simplifications'

A second, separate report released Tuesday buttressed the argument, finding that the government routinely underestimates the benefits of avoiding climate change when conducting cost-benefit analysis on regulations aimed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

This second report, published jointly by the World Resources Institute, an environmental think tank, and the Environmental Law Institute, found that government models on climate impacts often contain "dramatic simplifications and assumptions" - such as when calculating the social cost of carbon - that underplay the benefits society gains by curbing emissions.

Together, the two reports suggest policy makers are looking at a distorted picture as they assess the economic impacts of climate regulations. 


View the Original article

Tuesday 26 July 2011

Oceans on Brink of Catastrophe: Why We Must Stop Global Warming & Industrial Pollution

The world's oceans are faced with an unprecedented loss of species comparable to the great mass extinctions of prehistory, a major report suggests today. The seas are degenerating far faster than anyone has predicted, the report says, because of the cumulative impact of a number of severe individual stresses, ranging from climate warming and sea-water acidification, to widespread chemical pollution and gross overfishing.

The coming together of these factors is now threatening the marine environment with a catastrophe "unprecedented in human history", according to the report, from a panel of leading marine scientists brought together in Oxford earlier this year by the International Programme on the State of the Ocean (IPSO) and the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN).  



View the Original article

Monday 25 July 2011

The Monsanto/Bill Gates Plot: Genetically Engineered Rice Threatens Asian Countries

By Dr. Mercola
The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation has approved $20 million in new monies toward the development of "golden rice" -- an untested, highly controversial GE (genetically engineered) crop that threatens biodiversity and risks bringing economic and ecological disaster to Asia's farms.

The leader of the Golden Rice project is Gerald Barry, previously director of research at Monsanto.

Sarojeni V. Rengam, executive director of Pesticide Action Network Asia and the Pacific (PAN AP), has called the rice a "Trojan horse." According to Rengam, the rice is "... a public relations stunt pulled by the agri-business corporations to garner acceptance of GE crops and food. The whole idea of GE seeds is to make money."

Food Freedom reports:

 "Golden rice is a Trojan horse for pushing through GE-friendly biosafety regulations under the guise of humanitarian aid. Once in place, these regulations open the door for the biotech industry to bring in commercial, patented GE crops; USAID and Monsanto accomplished exactly this in Kenya with their sweet potato project."

In Thailand at least, however, a little known and unpublicized agricultural policy protects Thai rice from the risks of GMO's. The Thai Ministry of Agriculture's "Rice Strategy" is a master plan committed to strengthening the nation's rice production while promoting farmers' livelihoods and consumer confidence -- which includes keeping Thai rice GMO (genetically modified organism)-free.

Adding to the risks of GE crops is Monsanto's Roundup, the world's best-selling herbicide that is made to be partnered with GE Roundup Ready crops. According to a new report, regulators have known for years that Roundup causes birth defects. 


Regulators were apparently aware as long ago as 1980 that glyphosate, the active chemical ingredient of Roundup, caused birth defects in lab animals. However, the information was not made public. Instead, regulators misled the public about glyphosate's safety.


View the Original article

Sunday 24 July 2011

Whole Foods Includes GMOs In All Natural Foods

In this guest post by friend, super-sleuth, and fellow blogger Heather Dessinger of Mommypotamus, Heather reveals a disquieting truth about "all natural" product labels and the corporations that use them. She also asked that I include this disclaimer for all you Whole Foods defenders: "I still shop at Whole Foods . . . I just avoid stuff that is likely to contain GMO's. My goal in writing this post was to help other consumers do the same."

Do you believe in the Whole Foods fairy?

She used to be your garden variety woodland sprite, but times are hard and sorting mountains of corn and soy for Whole Foods is a sweet gig. Just sprinkle a little magical fairy dust and VOILA! The genetically modified feed separates from the conventional feed in a snap.

It's a win-win, really. Whole Foods gets to charge a premium for it's GMO-free natural meats, the fairy gets a generous 401K with rollover, and the consumer gets a superior product.

What, you don't believe?!?!? Tell me this then: If roughly 86% of corn and 93% of soy grown conventionally in the U.S. is genetically modified, and the "natural"chickens in Whole Foods are fed conventional corn and soy, then how are they GMO free?

Whole Foods employees are terribly unhelpful in answering this question, as is The Great Oracle Google. Fortunately, though, there is an answer! In an interview with Dr. Mercola, Whole Foods' Senior Global VP, Michael Besancon, ADMITTED their foods are contaminated with GMO's.



View the Original article

Saturday 23 July 2011

The Cost-Effective Way to Feed the World

By Margaret Mellon and Doug Gurian-Sherman
By 2050, the world will have to feed 9 billion people, adapt to climate change, reduce agricultural pollution, and protect fresh water supplies - all at the same time. Given that formidable challenge, what are the quickest, most cost-effective ways to develop more productive, drought-, flood- and pest-resistant crops?

Some will claim that genetically engineered (GE) crops are the solution. But when compared side-by-side, classical plant breeding bests genetic engineering. Coupled with ecologically based management methods that reduce the environmental harm of crop production, classical breeding could go a long way toward producing the food we will need by mid-century.

Producing better crops faster certainly would help the world feed itself, but genetic engineering has no advantage on that score. Not only can classical breeding programs introduce new varieties about as fast as genetic engineering, technical improvements are making classical practices even faster.

Early steps in the genetic engineering process avoid the multiple rounds of cross-breeding inherent in classical plant breeding by directly inserting engineered genes into the crop. But seed companies then use classical breeding to transfer engineered genes to the crop's numerous varieties for different markets and climates - and that takes time. And just as in classical breeding, new engineered varieties must be tested in the field for several years to ensure they perform as expected.


View the Original article

Friday 22 July 2011

Should We Label GMO Foods?

A hundred years ago, pretty much all of the food Americans ate was essentially organic and local - and not surprisingly, much more nutritious. But with the advent of Big Agra and industrialized food production, we moved towards a food supply heavily modified for higher yields and higher profits. First came pesticides, which U.S. farmers began using just after World War II. Then came genetically modified organisms, or GMOs. The first genetically modified food crop was introduced in 1994, and since then, the introduction of new GMO crops has accelerated at an alarming rate.

Throughout these changes, very little consideration has been given to food labeling, and by and large, consumers have had no idea to what extent the food they buy is contaminated with pesticides or genetically modified. Ironically enough, we now label normal food as "organic" to separate it from pesticide-laden, genetically modified food, which requires no labeling at all.

Call me silly, but shouldn't it be exactly the opposite? Shouldn't organic foods be the norm, and adulterated foods have labeling requirements? For example, how would you feel about a box of cereal labeled as "GMO Corn Flakes" sitting on the shelf at your local grocery store? Would you buy an apple with a sticker that said "Grown using pesticides"? Maybe, but probably not. The fact is, 86% of the corn grown in this country has been genetically modified, so unless that box of cereal is labeled "non-GMO," chance are, it's full of GMOs. And according to the Pesticide Action Network's What's On My Food? Guide, multiple pesticides are found in the majority of conventionally grown apples. But you certainly won't see any of these things on a label.



View the Original article

Thursday 21 July 2011

USDA and Corporate Agribusiness Continue to Push Animal ID Scheme

WASHINGTON, DC - The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) is expected to issue its new proposed rule for mandatory animal traceability very shortly. While USDA already has traceability requirements as part of existing animal disease control programs, the proposed framework goes much further to require animal tagging and tracing even absent any active disease threat. The framework has raised significant concerns among family farm and ranch advocates, who criticize the agency for failing to provide a coherent, factual explanation for the new program's necessity.

"USDA brags about the success of past programs, but has abandoned the principles that made them successful," argued Bill Bullard of R-CALF USA. "Past programs were based on sound science and were developed in response to the transmission, treatment, and elimination of specific identified diseases. USDA's new approach is a one-size-fits-all approach that does not specifically aim at the control of livestock diseases."

The USDA has presented its traceability scheme as an animal health program, but it has also reiterated the importance of the export market to the United States in promoting its new plan. The powerful meatpacking lobby has continued to push for such mandated traceability requirements in order to develop international standards for exports. Critics have suggested this is not in the American public's best interest, however, since the U.S. is a net importer of beef and cattle and the profits from the export market go to a small handful of massive meatpacking companies.



View the Original article

Wednesday 20 July 2011

Tim DeChristopher: This Climate Crisis Hero Didn't Stand a Chance

Tim DeChristopher is scheduled to be sentenced in a Salt Lake City courtroom by U.S. District Judge Dee Benson on July 26. He faces up to 10 years in prison and a $750,000 fine for fraudulently bidding in December 2008 on parcels of land, including areas around eastern Utah's national parks, which were being sold off by the Bush administration to the oil and natural gas industry. As Bidder No. 70, he drove up the prices of some of the bids and won more than a dozen other parcels for $1.8 million. The government is asking Judge Benson to send DeChristopher to prison for four and a half years.

His prosecution is evidence that our moral order has been turned upside down. The bankers and swindlers who trashed the global economy and wiped out some $40 trillion in wealth amass obscene amounts of money, much of it provided by taxpayers. They do not go to jail. Regulatory agencies, compliant to the demands of corporations, refuse to impede the destruction unleashed by the coal, oil and natural gas companies as they turn the planet into a hothouse of pollutants, poisoned water, fouled air and contaminated soil in the frenzied quest for greater and greater profits. Those who manage and make fortunes from pre-emptive wars, embrace torture, carry out extrajudicial assassinations, deny habeas corpus and run up the largest deficits in human history are feted as patriots. But when a courageous citizen such as DeChristopher peacefully derails the corporate and governmental destruction of the ecosystem, he is sent to jail.

"The rules are written by those who profit from the status quo," DeChristopher said when I reached him by phone this weekend in Minneapolis. "If we want to change that status quo we have to step outside of those rules. We have to put pressure on those within the political system to choose one side or another." 



View the Original article

Tuesday 19 July 2011

Where Are the White House Solar Panels Obama Promised This Spring?

Thirty two years ago today, President Jimmy Carter installed a series of solar panels on the White House roof. He stood up there on the roof that day, and issued an oracular warning: "A generation from now, this solar heater can either be a curiosity, a museum piece, or it can be a small part of the greatest adventures undertaken by the American people."

We found out the answer in much less than a generation -- it only took six years for Ronald Reagan to rip them off the roof. But we thought we'd gotten a new chance last fall when the Obama administration promised that solar panels would go back up this spring.

Spring ended last night, and...no solar panels. Instead there was a press release from the director of the Department of Energy's Solar Energy Technology Program saying "the Energy Department remains on the path to complete the White House solar demonstration project, in keeping with our commitment, and we look forward to sharing more information -- including additional details on the timing of this project -- after the competitive procurement process is completed." Translated from the bureaucratic, I think this means "we're working on it, just not very hard."


View the Original article

Monday 18 July 2011

In London, Bike Commuters Now the Majority in Some Places

In London, bicycles are gaining ground as a mode of transportation. And as in New York, the uptick in cyclists is exposing some uncomfortable divisions, stereotypes, and backlash.

If there is a transportation sea change happening here -- and it looks like there might be -- it is not going to come without some angst. Bike riders, drivers, and pedestrians are all going to have to adjust both their attitudes and their behavior.

According to the blog Cyclists in the City (that's "The City," as in London's version of Wall Street), the latest figures from London's transportation department show a huge boom in the number of two-wheeled commuters. This runs counter to the constant hectoring of people like high-profile journalist Jeremy Clarkson, who has made sport of ridiculing people who don't burn fossil fuels to get where they're going, and who recently referred to cycling in The Sunday Times of London (paywall) as "a frontline propaganda weapon in the war on capitalism."


View the Original article

Sunday 17 July 2011

Salmon Surprise: House Opposes FDA Frankenfish Approval

The eminent fisheries writer Paul Greenberg recently gutted and filleted the rationale for a novel type of farmed salmon genetically altered to grow faster. The "improved" fish, created by a Massachusetts-based company called AquaBounty Technologies, threatens to "escape and contaminate wild populations of salmon," Greenberg wrote. And the business model AquaBounty has in mind is ecologically insane: "the fish requires much wasteful transport since it would be cloned in Canada, grown in Panama, and then flown back to the U.S. for consumption." On top of those obvious drawbacks, the GMO salmon literally offers no benefits to the environment or consumers. "It is completely unnecessary," he concludes. Its only rationale is economic -- as defined narrowly by the interests of the AquaBounty shareholders. Greenberg writes:

"It seems to me that what the AquaBounty AquAdvantage salmon represents is the privatization of the salmon genome. Should salmon farming come to be dominated by the AquAdvantage fish, farmers could become dependent on a single company for their stock, just as soy, corn, and wheat farmers must now rely on large multinationals like Monsanto to provide seed for their fields year in and year out. AquaBounty will literally own salmon farming." 



View the Original article

Saturday 16 July 2011

Separate Shelves for GM Foods Is Now Law in Cyprus

THE HOUSE yesterday voted into law a bill making it compulsory to display genetically-modified (GM) foods on separate shelves in shops and supermarkets.

GM foods and foods containing GM ingredients, will now be sold with a prominent sign stating clearly that these are GM foods, or food containing GM ingredients.

The law provides for GM labelling in three languages (Greek, English and Turkish), and stipulates hefty fines for non-compliance.

It was passed by unanimous vote, despite earlier concerns of opposition from vested interests, such as commercial quarters.

The passage of the law was welcomed by the Green Party, which has been pushing for tighter GM regulation.

"This caps our efforts of nine years," said Greens MP George Perdikis.

The government bill passed yesterday was largely based on a legislative proposal drafted by Perdikis. He subsequently withdrew the legislative proposal as the government document has precedence.

Under EU legislation each member state is free to display these foods as it sees fit. The bloc also has tough labeling standards.



View the Original article

Friday 15 July 2011

Defeating GMOs - The Power of the Free Market

In 405 B.C., at the moment when Sparta captured the Hellespont, thereby controlling access to the Straits of Bosporus and the Black Sea, cutting off the supply of grain from that vital area, Athens was doomed. Indeed, it is said that, when news of this stunning development reached Athens, a wailing went up throughout the city that could be heard in Corinth  They knew.  Whoever controls the food supply, controls the course of destiny.

The dangers associated with GMO foods are myriad. They include major health risks, as foreign genes from other organisms, including bacteria and viruses, are forced into the DNA of food crops. Potential human health risks identified by FDA scientists include increased allergens in the food supply, toxins, new diseases, birth defects, infertility, increased risk of cancer, nutritional deficiencies, and even damage to internal organs, particularly gastrointestinal organs. And what of the other human health risks, the health of Society, and of Freedom?  Of these many dangers, the issue of food security, and of Farmer's Freedom, strikes me as being the most frightening.



View the Original article

Thursday 14 July 2011

Monsanto Responds to Glyphosate/Birth Defects Report

1. Earth Open Source response to Monsanto 2. June 2011 Earth Open Source Report on Roundup - Monsanto response

NOTE: Below (item 2) is Monsanto's initial response to the Earth Open Source report, "Roundup and birth defects: Is the public being kept in the dark?". The EOS report showed industry has known that glyphosate causes birth defects since the 1980s and EU regulators have known since the 1990s. But instead of informing the public, industry and regulators have repeatedly claimed that glyphosate and Roundup do not cause birth defects: http://www.scribd.com/doc/57277946/RoundupandBirthDefectsv5

Earth Open Source's response to Monsanto is also below (item 1). --- --- 1. Earth Open Source response to Monsanto June 14, 2011 http://on.fb.me/machCY

Monsanto responded to our report, "Roundup and birth defects: Is the public being kept in the dark?" in a statement on its website.

Monsanto said, "Regulatory authorities and independent experts around the world agree that glyphosate does not cause adverse reproductive effects in adult animals or birth defects in offspring of these adults exposed to glyphosate, even at doses far higher than relevant environmental or occupational exposures."

However, one of the main points of our report is that regulatory authorities have indeed agreed that glyphosate does not cause birth defects - but that conclusion is directly contradicted by the evidence in industry's own studies. These industry studies, submitted by companies including Monsanto in support of glyphosate's approval in the EU, showed that glyphosate causes birth defects in experimental animals. These effects were found not only at high doses, but also at mid and lower doses.



View the Original article

Wednesday 13 July 2011

Pesticide Spraying Near Streams to Increase Under Congressional bill

A bill allowing pesticide manufacturers and users to avoid the Clean Water Act permitting process passed in the Senate Agriculture Committee today.

If passed in the Senate, bill H.R. 872 lets farmers spray pesticides near public waters without having to meet Clean Water Act permitting requirements.

A 2007 EPA rule allowing all pesticides listed in the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) to be exempted from Clean Water Act permitting requirements was reversed by the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals in 2009.

The amendment, on its way to the Senate floor, reinstates the exemptions, effectively skirting the legal battles over whether pesticide residue is a chemical waste that can be regulated as a pollutant under the Act.

Growers, ranchers and others have highlighted the regulation as an example of unnecessary federal bureaucracy, while environmentalists supported it as a hedge against over-use of chemicals that may be perilous to aquatic life and to drinking water.

"The Committee sided with the pesticide industry and against our health and the health of our waters by eliminating all Clean Water Act protections of our rivers, lakes and streams against pesticide pollution," said Natural Resources Defense Council  staff attorney Mae Wu. 



View the Original article

Tuesday 12 July 2011

Doctors Ask EPA to Help Fight Pesticide Exposure in Farmworkers

A young female farm worker picking fruit in Washington's Yakima Valley came to see Dr. Matthew Keifer after pesticides being sprayed in an adjacent orchard wafted onto her. She arrived with red, swollen eyes and itchy, irritated skin -- classic symptoms of exposure to Paraquat, a common weedkiller that can cause kidney, heart, and liver problems.

Keifer suspected the Paraquat had made her sick, but proving those suspicions was impossible: For many pesticides, no tests exist that would show, definitively, whether or not a person been has exposed to the chemical. Had a test existed, Keifer's patient would have been able to to file a workers compensation claim that, if successful, would have covered the costs of her medical care and given her paid time off while she recovered. Instead, she went without.

"If a person's illness is judged to be work-related, they enter into a care system with excellent financial support and have access to referrals," Keifer says. "If not, they'll be stuck out there in limbo, usually without care."



View the Original article

Monday 11 July 2011

Are We Giant Suckers? While the US Blows Money on the Military, Europe Spends Dough on Social Programs

Last week, during his final European visit before retiring, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates blasted our NATO allies for spending too little on their militaries.

"The blunt reality," he told an audience in Brussels, "is that there will be dwindling appetite" in the U.S. "to expend increasingly precious funds on behalf of nations that are apparently unwilling to devote the necessary resources   to be serious and capable partners in their own defense.''

It's not uncommon for American hawks to whine about those soft Europeans not shelling out enough dough on weapons systems. But let's take a look at what "defense" actually means in this context.

On average, wealthy countries in the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development spend 2.5 percent of their economic output on their militaries. That's not peanuts with very large economies. Europe is shielded by nuclear arms in the hands of the UK and France (not counting the nukes we "lend" to Germany, Italy, Turkey, Belgium and the Netherlands under a NATO agreement). There are no nation-states likely to attack the continent anytime soon.



View the Original article

Sunday 10 July 2011

Van Jones Jumpstarts New Progressive Movement to Confront and Push Back American Conservative and Corporate Dominance

Tonight, in New York City's venerable Town Hall, Van Jones, arguably the most visible progressive "organizer" in America, and surely one of the country's best orators, steps up to assume a bigger role -- that of major progressive strategist and visionary. Tonight is Jones' opening gambit in a large-scale, ambitious effort to create what many hope will be the progressives answer to the Tea Party.

Jones, with major support from MoveOn.org and other groups, will present a big-picture vision for mobilizing progressive forces of many types and stripes under the patriotic umbrella brand of the "American Dream Movement." The goal is nothing less than a broad "open source" movement of millions who, via organizing, house parties, events, technological savvy, and electoral activity, will attempt to shift America's focus away from the budget-cut mentality and the protection of big corporations and banks, to the human and economic support of tens of millions of unemployed and downsized Americans, including returning war vets and young people. (The event, which also features musical group the Roots, will be streamed live beginning at 8:15pm EDT on many Web sites, including AlterNet. Tune in tonight.)

There is much anticipation for this moment, and more than a little skepticism. Many have been wringing their hands, wondering why progressives seem so impotent in the face of the Tea Party. We've been hugely disappointed in the Obama administration for not mounting a more populist, people-oriented challenge to the corporate and banking dominance of our economic system, which has resulted in both the bailout of the banks, and the obscene shift of wealth to an increasingly small number of super-rich Americans. Jones hopes to offer an answer.



View the Original article

Saturday 9 July 2011

Mercola: Don't Make these Mistakes with the Government's New Food Pyramid

The U.S. "food pyramid" is being replaced with a plate icon that urges Americans to eat a more plant-based diet. Nutritionists had long considered the pyramid deeply flawed because it did not distinguish clearly between healthy foods and less healthy choices.

According to "MyPlate," half of your plate should be filled with fruits and vegetables, with lean protein and whole grains dividing up the other half. Low-fat dairy on the side is also suggested.

CNN reports:

    "Grains, which had been featured prominently as the base in a previous food pyramid, are less dominant on the new plate."

As you add more veggies to your plate, be aware that many are more contaminated than you probably thought. Random USDA testing found an astonishing 34 different varieties of pesticide residue on a batch of conventional cilantro. The cilantro was the first batch of the plant tested in the USDA's 20-year program.

Azoxystrobin and captan were found 16 times at levels that exceeded federal limits. Other plants that contained excessive amounts of legal pesticides included imported asparagus and domestic spinach.

Treehugger reports:

    "Some medical experts ... are increasingly concerned about even low-level exposure to pesticides, especially in utero."

Sources:
  CNN June 2, 2011
  Time Magazine June 2, 2011
  New York Times May 27, 2011
  Treehugger June 5, 2011
  ChicagoTribune.com May 31, 2011
  USDA Pesticide Data Program
 

Dr. Mercola's Comments:

Even a cursory glance at the new USDA food plate icon reveals it is leaps and bounds ahead of both the 1992 and 2005 Food Pyramids. For starters, it is not a pyramid, it is a plate, which makes it far easier to apply when you're actually at the dinner table.

There are other prominent improvements as well, such as finally cutting down on grains and increasing the amount of veggies recommended.



View the Original article

Friday 8 July 2011

Apples Top 2011 'Dirty Dozen' List, Says EWG - Buy Organic

Apples are the most chemically contaminated produce, says a new report by the Environmental Working Group, a non-profit focused on public health.

The report suggests buying organic apples instead of conventional, and names other fruits and vegetables that rank highest in pesticides. Organic produce is grown using materials of plant or animal origin, instead of chemicals. On the "dirty dozen" list are:

1. Apples

2. Celery

3. Strawberries

4. Peaches

5. Spinach

6. Imported nectarines

7. Imported grapes

8. Sweet bell peppers

9. Potatoes

10. Domestic blueberries

11. Lettuce

12. Kale/collard greens

The group also lists the "Clean 15," or those that rank lowest in pesticide residues. These are:

1. Onions

2. Sweet Corn

3. Pineapples

4. Avocado



View the Original article

Thursday 7 July 2011

Organic Farmers vs Monsanto

While a cow or goat may respect a property fence, pollen knows no such boundaries. Even if a farmer plants a field of non-GMO (not genetically modified) corn, she may still end up with some genetically engineered material on her farm if GMO pollen "drifts" over from a neighbor's field. Monsanto has a history of taking farmers to court if they're found to be in possession of patented plant material without permission, even if the plant material came to their fields inadvertently.

But now, tired of living in fear of lawsuits that they claim are unjust, a group of farmers, seed savers, and farm advocates is challenging the agribusiness giant's right to continue the practice.

We're inspired by this landmark case and today we're happy to have more background and perspective to share with you from one of the plaintiffs, Tom Willey. Tom is an organic farmer in Madera, California and a Slow Food USA regional governor.  Here are some highlights from our conversation about why this case matters to him, to his fellow farmers, and to consumers in general.

What is your role in the lawsuit? Why did you decide to get involved?

There are too many people in the agricultural community being picked off one by one over this issue of their crops being contaminated by genetically modified organisms (GMOs). Everyone on the suit is potentially liable to be sued by Monsanto. The Public Patent Foundation (PUBPAT) initiated this suit to deny Monsanto the right to sue farmers for being inadvertently contaminated with GMO genes.

If you stand by and watch your neighbors being abused and don't do anything to back them up, there may not be anyone there to help you.  It's very difficult for individual farmers to defend themselves from legal onslaughts from Monsanto so we thought we best go after defending the whole farming community as a group.  Luckily PUPBAT has the resources to help us make that happen and hopefully we'll prevail. 



View the Original article

Wednesday 6 July 2011

Big Ag Attacks Organics: Who is Mischa Popoff?

When The Cornucopia Institute, a farm policy research group, officially launched in April 2004, one of its primary issue areas was what it referred to as "The Corporate Attack on Organic Agriculture."  At the time, Cornucopia's focus was on the father and son team of Dennis and Alex Avery at the ultra-conservative Hudson Institute's campaign to discredit organics.  Now, in 2011, after seven years of successfully exposing the genesis of Hudson's ire, and greatly diminishing its effectiveness, a new generation of "Trojan horse" naysayers has emerged.

The latest attacks come from Mischa Popoff, a Canadian who purports to be an advocate for organics and is publicizing his self-published book entitled Is It Organic?  The author misses few opportunities to impugn the integrity of the organic label, or USDA oversight, while simultaneously defending biotechnology and the industrial agriculture system that organics seeks to replace.

"Addressing the potential damage from attacks by the Hudson Institute, and other right-wing think tanks such as the Hoover Institution, the Heartland Institute, and the Competitive Enterprise Institute, was relatively easy," said Mark A. Kastel, Codirector at the Wisconsin-based Cornucopia Institute.  "Every rebuttal that we published, or preemptive media advisory we issued, was put into context by including the corporate agribusiness funding base for the work of these entities."  



View the Original article

Tuesday 5 July 2011

DuPont Joins $20 Million PR Campaign to Defend Biotech and Chemical Ag

DuPont today joined an effort to bolster the image of agriculture and enhance public trust in the U.S. food production system. The initiative is led by the U.S. Farmers & Ranchers Alliance (USFRA), a new initiative represented by more than 40 of the leading farmer- and rancher-led agricultural organizations.

The USFRA was established in October 2010 and represents farmer and rancher organizations that reach nearly all aspects of U.S. agriculture. The Alliance will work to increase the role of U.S. farmers and ranchers as the voice of animal and crop agriculture on local, state and national food issues. It also will serve as a resource to food companies on the benefits of modern production agriculture and work with leading health, environmental and dietary organizations.

"DuPont is proud to support the U.S. Farmers & Ranchers Alliance as they bring together an unprecedented group that crosses all boundaries in modern agriculture with a single goal of building understanding about the dependable, abundant supply of food produced by today's farmers and ranchers," said DuPont Executive Vice President James C. Borel. "There is an increased need to reinforce the importance of agricultural contributions and its value to society, and promoting the merits of a career in agriculture also are essential to recruiting tomorrow's farmers and innovators." 



View the Original article

Monday 4 July 2011

Harmful Effects of Energy Drinks on Children, Adolescents and Young Adults

Why Energy Drinks Are Popular Among the Young

Marketed as energy enhancers, young adults and children take energy drinks before doing athletic activities, working on projects or just studying for exams. These popular, often carbonated beverages contain caffeine and many other substances like tea extracts, ginseng, taurine and yohimbine that boost one's energy levels. They are able to stay awake and active, perhaps believing that their strength, endurance and memory are improved.

Some take these drinks in place of high calorie meals to avoid weight gain and suppress appetite. Since these drinks are loaded with sugar some prefer diet energy drinks which may contain fewer calories but have caffeine and other substances as well. Still others may use these products to overcome fatigue, stress and tension.

Various studies have found that about 30-50% of children as young as 5 years old, adolescents and young adults consume energy enhancing beverages in various amounts, with a few drinking these habitually.

 



View the Original article

Sunday 3 July 2011

How to Fight Obesity and Climate Change at the Same Time

By Sarah Laskow
LOUISVILLE - This city's Broadway displays its own array of neon signs - two dozen fast-food restaurants, as diverse as McDonald's and the local Indi's - beckoning along a 2.8-mile corridor bookended by low-income neighborhoods on the front lines of a multimillion-dollar battle against obesity.

The street symbolizes one of many hurdles facing officials here working to put a severely overweight population on a diet. After all, Kentucky is where Colonel Harland Sanders first made his famous fried chicken and a hotel invented the Hot Brown, a turkey-bacon sandwich drowning in Mornay sauce.

The street symbolizes one of many hurdles facing officials here working to put a severely overweight population on a diet. After all, Kentucky is where Colonel Harland Sanders first made his famous fried chicken and a hotel invented the Hot Brown, a turkey-bacon sandwich drowning in Mornay sauce.



View the Original article

A Fight Over the Future of Farming: U.N. Ag Group vs. Big Ag

By Tom Laskawy
"The present paradigm of intensive crop production cannot meet the challenges of the new millennium," says a new report from the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO).

In other words: Big Ag, step aside. It's not as if the world is being fed particularly well at the moment -- and prospects are dimming for chemical agriculture in a resource-restricted, warming world.

The FAO has been very active in attempts to make world agriculture more sustainable. It published an influential 2006 report on animal agriculture's environmental and climate impact, and it was behind the 2008 International Assessment of Agricultural Science and Technology for Development report, which laid out a vision of the future of agriculture in the developing world based on the principles of agro-ecology rather than on chemically intensive industrial agriculture.

Building on that work, the FAO has now published a "policymaker's guide" for developing-world agriculture called "Save and Grow" that begins like this:

 The Green Revolution in agriculture, which swept much of the developing world during the 1960s, saved an estimated one billion people from famine. Thanks to high-yielding crop varieties, irrigation, agrochemicals and modern management techniques, farmers in developing countries increased food production from 800 million tonnes to more than 2.2 billion tonnes between 1961 and 2000. Intensive crop production helped to reduce the number of undernourished, drive rural development and prevent the destruction of natural ecosystems to make way for extensive farming. Those achievements came at a cost. In many countries, decades of intensive cropping have degraded fertile land and depleted groundwater, provoked pest upsurges, eroded biodiversity, and polluted air, soil and water. As the world population rises to a projected 9.2 billion in 2050, we have no option but to further intensify crop production. But the yield growth rate of major cereals is declining, and farmers face a series of unprecedented, intersecting challenges: increasing competition for land and water, rising fuel and fertilizer prices, and the impact of climate change.



View the Original article

Saturday 2 July 2011

Prenatal Pesticide Exposure Tied to Birth Size

Reuters, June 14, 2011
Researchers found that among nearly 500 newborns whose umbilical cord blood was tested for pesticide residues, those with higher levels tended to be smaller at birth.

The chemicals in question include DDT and three other organochlorines -- an older group of pesticides that are now banned or restricted in the U.S. and other developed countries, after research linked them to cancer and other potential health risks.

However, the pesticides persist in the environment for years. In the U.S., diet is the main potential source of exposure, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) -- with fatty foods, like dairy products and oily fish, topping the list.

In the new study, researchers found that for each 10-fold increase in any of the four pesticides in newborns' cord blood, birth weight dipped by roughly 2 to 4 ounces.

Higher levels of DDT were also linked to a decrease in head circumference, while another pesticide -- hexachlorobenzene (HCB), once used as a fungicide -- was tied to a shorter birth length.

The findings, reported in the journal Pediatrics, do not prove that the pesticides themselves hindered fetal growth.



View the Original article

Friday 1 July 2011

Labor-Funded Progressive Leaders Cross Huffington Post Picket Line

By Mike Elk
Last week was a milestone in journalism, as the Huffington Post exceeded the New York Times in Web traffic and cemented its role as a main rival to the Gray Lady.  It was also noted that the combined AOL-Huffington Post newsroom staff of 1,300 people is now bigger than the Times' 1,200 person newsroom staff. While much of the debate about the rivalry has focused on Huffington Post's adoption of savvy Internet tactics versus the much more old-school New York Times, very little of the discussion has focused on where the two newsroom differ the most: their labor practices.

The Times' newsroom staff is entirely unionized, while the AOL-Huffington Post staff is entirely nonunionized. Also unlike the Times, which insists on paying every professional writer (even op-ed contributors), the Huffington Post has relied on a network of over 8,000 unpaid bloggers to establish itself and drive traffic to its site. In a Forbes magazine article, AOL executives were quoted as saying that AOL CEO Tim Armstrong "talked a lot about the importance of recruiting hordes of free bloggers . "It was always, 'Arianna does it. That's what she's built her business on. Why don't we do it, too?'" says a former AOL editor-in-chief."

Labor leaders claim that with 11,000 journalists having lost their jobs due to newsrooms cutbacks in the last three years, AOL-Huffington Post has risen to its stature by exploiting journalists desperate to establish names for themselves as writers, and thus willing to work for free in the hopes that they may someday find paid work. They say that the fact the Huffington Post doesn't pay its writers is an unfair business advantage that is sure to lower the standards of journalists.



View the Original article