Wikileaks Reveals Monsanto's Close Relationship with the US Government

By Jonathan Reynolds

For related articles and more information, please visit OCA's Politics and Democracy page, Genetic Engineering page, Millions Against Monsanto page.

In cables released by Wikileaks this past August, 2011, US diplomats asked the State Department for funding to send biotechnology experts to "target countries" for discussions with high-profile politicians and agricultural officials.

The "target countries" include African, Asian and South American countries where genetically modified (GM) agriculture has yet to gain a foothold. Even some European countries have been targeted, such as France, since it has been slow to adopt GM foods. Summarizing a French documentary, "The World According to Monsanto," a 2008 cable reads:

"Jeffrey Smith, Director, Institute for Responsible Technology, who is interviewed says that a number of Bush Administration officers were close to Monsanto, either having obtained campaign contributions from the company or having worked directly for it: John Ashcroft, Secretary of Justice, received contributions from Monsanto when he was reelected, as did Tommy Thompson, Secretary of Health; Ann Veneman, Secretary of Agriculture, was director of Calgene which belonged to Monsanto; and Donald Rumsfeld, Secretary of Defense, was CEO of Searle, a Monsanto subsidiary; and Justice Clarence Thomas was a former lawyer for Monsanto."

Embassy diplomats requested Washington provide "talking points" so officers could respond to the documentary on an "if asked" basis and emphasize "the positive role ag biotech can play in meeting world food needs."

The close relationship between the US government and Monsanto has unfortunately continued into the Obama administration. President Obama nominated the former pro-biotech governor of Iowa, Tom Vilsack, as USDA Secretary; he nominated Michael Taylor, former Monsanto Vice President, as the FDA Deputy Commissioner for Foods; and he nominated Solicitor General Elena Kagan, who took Monsanto's side against organic farmers in the Roundup Ready alfalfa case, to the Supreme Court.

View the Original article

Junk Food Diet Hits a Child's IQ, Reveals Major UK Study

By Jenny Hope

For related articlesand more information, please visit OCA'sAppetite for a Change page,and our Food Safety page.

Toddlers fed a diet of junk food can suffer lasting damage to their brainpower, researchers warn.

Children who eat more chips, crisps, biscuits and pizza before the age of three have a lower IQ five years later, a study showed.

The difference could be as much as five IQ points compared with children given healthier diets with fruit, vegetables and home-cooked food.

But even if their diet improves, it could be too late as the ill-effects can persist for a lifetime.

This is the first study to suggest a direct link between the diet of young children and their brainpower in later life.

The project at Bristol University took account of factors such as social class, breastfeeding and maternal education and age.

Researchers also allowed for the influence of the home environment, for example a child's access to toys and books.

They said good nutrition was crucial in the first three years of life when the brain grows at its fastest rate.

Young children eating a diet packed with fats, sugar and processed foods consume too few vitamins and nutrients, which means their brains never grow to optimal levels.

View the Original article

The FDA Finally Reveals How Many Antibiotics Factory Farms Use - and It's a Load

Animals in factory farms get daily doses of antibiotics, both to keep them alive in their stressful, unsanitary conditions and to make them grow faster. What's the annual volume of antibiotic use on factory farms? The question is a critical one, because the practice has given rise to a novel strain of antibiotic-resistant staph (MRSA), known as ST398, that's widely present in our vast hog and chicken factories.

Well, federal regulators have for years ignored the question and refused to release estimates of just how much antibiotics the livestock industry burns through. But that ended yesterday, when the FDA released its first-ever report on the topic. The answer: 29 million pounds in 2009. According to ace public-health reporter Maryn McKenna, that's a shitload. (I'm paraphrasing her.)

McKenna, author of the important book Superbug: The Fatal Menace of MRSA and once a guest on my podcast show, puts it into context on her blog. She says that in lieu of official accounting of antibiotic use in industrial agriculture, NGOs have tried to fill the void. In 2000, she reports, the Animal Health Institute, a veterinary-drug trade group, estimated total use in livestock at 17.8 million pounds. The industry has been clinging to that number ever since.

Meanwhile, the Union of Concerned Scientists, which campaigns against industrial agriculture, put the figure at 24.6 million pounds in a 2001 study. But the UCS figure focused only on "non-therapeutic purposes" -- i.e.,  in McKenna's words, applications not designed to treat specific illnesses but rather to "make animals grow to market weight faster and to prevent them catching diseases in the close quarters of confinement agriculture." UCS figured the industry used another several million pounds for legit purposes of treating sick animals.

Assuming that factory farmers haven't dramatically ramped up antibiotic use over the past decade, the industry figure is woefully off -- about 40 percent lower than the real one. And the UCS estimate holds up well. I took another look at that classic UCS report, called "Hogging It: Estimates of Antimicrobial Abuse in Livestock." In it, the group estimates that total U.S. antibiotic production stands at 50 million pounds. Assuming that's roughly still correct -- again, the paper came out in 2001 -- that means factory animal farms hog a stunning 60 percent of U.S. antibiotics.

Importantly, McKenna says the FDA's report dovetails with the agency's "new effort to curb antibiotic use in agriculture." The first step to that effort, of course, is scrutiny and transparency. Margaret Hamburg's FDA deserves praise for finally delivering an accounting of how our animals factories are gulping antibiotics. 


View the Original article