America's supermarkets are awash in genetically modified foods. Over the past decade, biotech companies like Monsanto have dominated dinner tables with crops like corn, soybeans and canola modified to survive lethal doses of herbicides, resulting in increased herbicide use, a surge in herbicide-resistant weeds, and the contamination of organic and conventional crops. According to the Center for Food Safety, more than half of all processed food in U.S. grocery stores-items like cereals, corn dogs and cookies-contain genetically engineered (GE) ingredients.
"This technology is a one-trick pony," says George Kimbrell, an attorney at the Center for Food Safety. "They don't help us feed the world, they don't fight climate change, and they don't help us better the environment. They just increase pesticides and herbicides. That's what they do." (Listen to an interview with George Kimbrell.)
Currently, 85 percent of GE crops are designed to resist herbicides. Companies like Syngenta, Bayer and Dow have all created their own herbicide tolerant seeds, modified to withstand the company's corresponding herbicide treatment. But it's Monsanto, the world leader in GE seed production, that has benefited the most from biotechnology by packaging its Roundup Ready line of GE seeds with its Roundup herbicide. Monsanto, whose roots began in creating toxic chemical concoctions like polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) and DDT, is now the world's leading producer of glyphosate, the active ingredient in Roundup herbicide. (See Monsanto's chemical history timeline.)
But what's good for Monsanto's business isn't so great for people or the environment. That's why in 2007, Earthjustice, together with the Center for Food Safety, challenged the U.S. Department of Agriculture's decision to allow Monsanto's Roundup Ready sugar beets on the market, arguing that the agency failed to adequately assess both its environmental and economic impacts.
View the Original article
Sunday, 7 August 2011
Saturday, 6 August 2011
The Worlds Largest Human Experiment: GMOs, Roundup, and the Monsanto Monstrosity
By Madison Ruppert
Informed consent is one of the most basic aspects of patient-physician relations, as well as subject-researcher relations in the case of research studies. This involves making the patient aware of and verifying that they understand the risks, benefits, facts, and the future implications of the procedure or test they are going to be subjected to.
In the case of genetically modified organisms we have not been made aware of the risks. In fact, the GMO industry has deliberately hidden the real dangers behind the seeds and herbicides they peddle.
The Food and Drug Administration of the United States of America has defined informed consent in the following bureaucratic jargon:
Except as provided in 50.23 and 50.24, no investigator may involve a human being as a subject in research covered by these regulations unless the investigator has obtained the legally effective informed consent of the subject or the subject's legally authorized representative. An investigator shall seek such consent only under circumstances that provide the prospective subject or the representative sufficient opportunity to consider whether or not to participate and that minimize the possibility of coercion or undue influence. The information that is given to the subject or the representative shall be in language understandable to the subject or the representative. No informed consent, whether oral or written, may include any exculpatory language through which the subject or the representative is made to waive or appear to waive any of the subject's legal rights, or releases or appears to release the investigator, the sponsor, the institution, or its agents from liability for negligence.
Under all of these definitions, including the exceptions which you can peruse at the above linked official website, what Monsanto is doing with GM crops and their Roundup products are ethically wrong and illegal.
Some might say, "So what? It doesn't matter since genetically modified products are perfectly safe! Why would I care, if it helps farmers, and it is safe, then what is wrong with doing it without informed consent?"
View the Original article
Informed consent is one of the most basic aspects of patient-physician relations, as well as subject-researcher relations in the case of research studies. This involves making the patient aware of and verifying that they understand the risks, benefits, facts, and the future implications of the procedure or test they are going to be subjected to.
In the case of genetically modified organisms we have not been made aware of the risks. In fact, the GMO industry has deliberately hidden the real dangers behind the seeds and herbicides they peddle.
The Food and Drug Administration of the United States of America has defined informed consent in the following bureaucratic jargon:
Except as provided in 50.23 and 50.24, no investigator may involve a human being as a subject in research covered by these regulations unless the investigator has obtained the legally effective informed consent of the subject or the subject's legally authorized representative. An investigator shall seek such consent only under circumstances that provide the prospective subject or the representative sufficient opportunity to consider whether or not to participate and that minimize the possibility of coercion or undue influence. The information that is given to the subject or the representative shall be in language understandable to the subject or the representative. No informed consent, whether oral or written, may include any exculpatory language through which the subject or the representative is made to waive or appear to waive any of the subject's legal rights, or releases or appears to release the investigator, the sponsor, the institution, or its agents from liability for negligence.
Under all of these definitions, including the exceptions which you can peruse at the above linked official website, what Monsanto is doing with GM crops and their Roundup products are ethically wrong and illegal.
Some might say, "So what? It doesn't matter since genetically modified products are perfectly safe! Why would I care, if it helps farmers, and it is safe, then what is wrong with doing it without informed consent?"
View the Original article
Friday, 5 August 2011
Woman Faces Jail Time for Planting Organic Vegetable Garden
By Brad Tuttle
A Michigan woman is being charged with a misdemeanor offense and is facing up to 93 days in jail. Her crime? Planting a vegetable garden-in her own yard. Her front yard, that is.
Like many consumers today, Julie Bass, of Oak Park, Mich., appreciates the taste and healthfulness of organic vegetables, but isn't much of a fan of how much going organic costs at the store. So, like many health-minded consumers, she planted a vegetable garden on her property.
But Bass chose to take the unusual step of installing neatly arranged raised beds of vegetables in her front, rather than back, yard. Bass explained her unorthodox garden location (and showed off how neat and organized it is, for those curious) to a local TV station:
"We thought it'd be really cool to do it so the neighbors could see. The kids love it. The kids from the neighborhood all come and help," she said.
Front yard or back, it's her property, and she's allowed to do with it what she pleases, right? Wrong, say the local authorities, citing local codes that require front yards to have only "suitable" live plant material. City planners say that vegetables, for some reason, don't qualify for the standard, even though they are certainly alive, and certainly are planted. To some, this sort of code enforcement makes the restrictions against drying clothes on a clothesline seem reasonable.
View the Original article
A Michigan woman is being charged with a misdemeanor offense and is facing up to 93 days in jail. Her crime? Planting a vegetable garden-in her own yard. Her front yard, that is.
Like many consumers today, Julie Bass, of Oak Park, Mich., appreciates the taste and healthfulness of organic vegetables, but isn't much of a fan of how much going organic costs at the store. So, like many health-minded consumers, she planted a vegetable garden on her property.
But Bass chose to take the unusual step of installing neatly arranged raised beds of vegetables in her front, rather than back, yard. Bass explained her unorthodox garden location (and showed off how neat and organized it is, for those curious) to a local TV station:
"We thought it'd be really cool to do it so the neighbors could see. The kids love it. The kids from the neighborhood all come and help," she said.
Front yard or back, it's her property, and she's allowed to do with it what she pleases, right? Wrong, say the local authorities, citing local codes that require front yards to have only "suitable" live plant material. City planners say that vegetables, for some reason, don't qualify for the standard, even though they are certainly alive, and certainly are planted. To some, this sort of code enforcement makes the restrictions against drying clothes on a clothesline seem reasonable.
View the Original article
Thursday, 4 August 2011
15 Food Companies That Serve You 'Wood'
By Miriam Reimer
NEW YORK -- Are you getting what you pay for on your plate?
The recent class-action lawsuit brought against Taco Bell raised questions about the quality of food many Americans eat each day.
Chief among those concerns is the use of cellulose (read: wood pulp), an extender whose use in a roster of food products, from crackers and ice creams to puddings and baked goods, is now being exposed. What you're actually paying for -- and consuming -- may be surprising.
Cellulose is virgin wood pulp that has been processed and manufactured to different lengths for functionality, though use of it and its variant forms (cellulose gum, powdered cellulose, microcrystalline cellulose, etc.) is deemed safe for human consumption, according to the FDA, which regulates most food industry products. The government agency sets no limit on the amount of cellulose that can be used in food products meant for human consumption. The USDA, which regulates meats, has set a limit of 3.5% on the use of cellulose, since fiber in meat products cannot be recognized nutritionally.
"As commodity prices continue to rally and the cost of imported materials impacts earnings, we expect to see increasing use of surrogate products within food items. Cellulose is certainly in higher demand and we expect this to continue," Michael A. Yoshikami, chief investment strategist at YCMNet Advisors, told TheStreet.
Manufacturers use cellulose in food as an extender, providing structure and reducing breakage, said Dan Inman, director of research and development at J. Rettenmaier USA, a company that supplies "organic" cellulose fibers for use in a variety of processed foods and meats meant for human and pet consumption, as well as for plastics, cleaning detergents, welding electrodes, pet litter, automotive brake pads, glue and reinforcing compounds, construction materials, roof coating, asphalt and even emulsion paints, among many other products.
View the Original article
NEW YORK -- Are you getting what you pay for on your plate?
The recent class-action lawsuit brought against Taco Bell raised questions about the quality of food many Americans eat each day.
Chief among those concerns is the use of cellulose (read: wood pulp), an extender whose use in a roster of food products, from crackers and ice creams to puddings and baked goods, is now being exposed. What you're actually paying for -- and consuming -- may be surprising.
Cellulose is virgin wood pulp that has been processed and manufactured to different lengths for functionality, though use of it and its variant forms (cellulose gum, powdered cellulose, microcrystalline cellulose, etc.) is deemed safe for human consumption, according to the FDA, which regulates most food industry products. The government agency sets no limit on the amount of cellulose that can be used in food products meant for human consumption. The USDA, which regulates meats, has set a limit of 3.5% on the use of cellulose, since fiber in meat products cannot be recognized nutritionally.
"As commodity prices continue to rally and the cost of imported materials impacts earnings, we expect to see increasing use of surrogate products within food items. Cellulose is certainly in higher demand and we expect this to continue," Michael A. Yoshikami, chief investment strategist at YCMNet Advisors, told TheStreet.
Manufacturers use cellulose in food as an extender, providing structure and reducing breakage, said Dan Inman, director of research and development at J. Rettenmaier USA, a company that supplies "organic" cellulose fibers for use in a variety of processed foods and meats meant for human and pet consumption, as well as for plastics, cleaning detergents, welding electrodes, pet litter, automotive brake pads, glue and reinforcing compounds, construction materials, roof coating, asphalt and even emulsion paints, among many other products.
View the Original article
Wednesday, 3 August 2011
Hacking the Wisconsin Recalls: Why We Must Have Hand-Counted Paper Ballots and Citizen Exit Polls
By Grant W. Petty and Sheila Parks
It goes without saying that the outcomes of the nine Senate recall elections scheduled in Wisconsin will be of intense interest to most of the UW-Madison community. Forecasting the outcome of elections weeks in advance is always a risky business; nevertheless, we offer the following bold prediction:
In at least some cases, the candidate receiving the lesser of the actual votes cast -- perhaps, in fact, the candidate you passionately opposed -- will be declared the official victor.
Chances are, you either think we are nuts or you are already upset with the dismal state of elections in Wisconsin, if not the country. Either way, we hope this article will change your view of both (a) the security of the elections and (b) the ability of ordinary citizens like you to improve that security.
Here's a second prediction which gets to the heart of the real problem:
No one -- not the Government Accountability Board, not the media, not any elected official, and most certainly not you -- has the slightest hope of ever disproving our first prediction in light of current election procedures and practices.
View the Original article
It goes without saying that the outcomes of the nine Senate recall elections scheduled in Wisconsin will be of intense interest to most of the UW-Madison community. Forecasting the outcome of elections weeks in advance is always a risky business; nevertheless, we offer the following bold prediction:
In at least some cases, the candidate receiving the lesser of the actual votes cast -- perhaps, in fact, the candidate you passionately opposed -- will be declared the official victor.
Chances are, you either think we are nuts or you are already upset with the dismal state of elections in Wisconsin, if not the country. Either way, we hope this article will change your view of both (a) the security of the elections and (b) the ability of ordinary citizens like you to improve that security.
Here's a second prediction which gets to the heart of the real problem:
No one -- not the Government Accountability Board, not the media, not any elected official, and most certainly not you -- has the slightest hope of ever disproving our first prediction in light of current election procedures and practices.
View the Original article
Tuesday, 2 August 2011
Monsanto's GMO Crops Killing off Monarch Butterflies
By Andrew Pollack
As recently as a decade ago, farms in the Midwest were commonly marred - at least as a farmer would view it - by unruly patches of milkweed amid the neat rows of emerging corn or soybeans.
Not anymore. Fields are now planted with genetically modified corn and soybeans resistant to the herbicide Roundup, allowing farmers to spray the chemical to eradicate weeds, including milkweed.
And while that sounds like good news for the farmers, a growing number of scientists fear it is imperiling the monarch butterfly, whose spectacular migrations make it one of the most beloved of insects - "the Bambi of the insect world," as an entomologist once put it.
Monarchs lay their eggs on milkweed, and their larvae eat it. While the evidence is still preliminary and disputed, experts like Chip Taylor say the growing use of genetically modified crops is threatening the orange-and-black butterfly by depriving it of habitat.
"This milkweed has disappeared from at least 100 million acres of these row crops," said Dr. Taylor, an insect ecologist at the University of Kansas and director of the research and conservation program Monarch Watch. "Your milkweed is virtually gone."
View the Original article
As recently as a decade ago, farms in the Midwest were commonly marred - at least as a farmer would view it - by unruly patches of milkweed amid the neat rows of emerging corn or soybeans.
Not anymore. Fields are now planted with genetically modified corn and soybeans resistant to the herbicide Roundup, allowing farmers to spray the chemical to eradicate weeds, including milkweed.
And while that sounds like good news for the farmers, a growing number of scientists fear it is imperiling the monarch butterfly, whose spectacular migrations make it one of the most beloved of insects - "the Bambi of the insect world," as an entomologist once put it.
Monarchs lay their eggs on milkweed, and their larvae eat it. While the evidence is still preliminary and disputed, experts like Chip Taylor say the growing use of genetically modified crops is threatening the orange-and-black butterfly by depriving it of habitat.
"This milkweed has disappeared from at least 100 million acres of these row crops," said Dr. Taylor, an insect ecologist at the University of Kansas and director of the research and conservation program Monarch Watch. "Your milkweed is virtually gone."
View the Original article
Monday, 1 August 2011
The Power - and Limits - of Social Movements
By Robert Jensen
In mainstream politics in the United States, everyone agrees on one thing: We're number one. We're special. We're America. We're on top, where we deserve to be.
In dissident politics in the United States, we have long argued that this quest for economic and military dominance can't be squared with basic moral and political principles. We're on top, but it's unjust and unsustainable.
Whether or not the United States has ever had a legitimate claim to that top spot -- or whether there should be spots on top for any nation(s) -- the days of uncontested dominance are over: Our economy is in permanent decline and our military power continues to fade. We are still the wealthiest society in history, but we are no longer the dynamic heart of the global economy. Our military is still able to destroy at will, but the wars of the past decade have demonstrated the limits of that barbarism.
How should the U.S. public react to this shift? One approach would be to acknowledge that predatory corporate capitalism based on greed and First World imperialism based on violence have produced obscene levels of inequality, both within societies and between societies, that are inconsistent with those basic moral and political principles. Our task is to reshape systems and institutions before it's too late.
That kind of critical self-reflection also leads to the conclusion that our society not only fails on the criterion of social justice but also is ecologically unsustainable. We are a profligate, consumption-mad society, in a world in which unsustainable living arrangements are the norm in the developed world and spreading quickly in the developing world. We can't predict the time frame for collapse if we continue on this trajectory, but we can be reasonably certain that without major changes in our relationship to the larger living world the ecosphere will at some point (likely within decades) be unable to support large-scale human life as we know it.
These crises, if honestly acknowledged and squarely faced, would test our capacity to analyze and adapt -- there's no guarantee that enough time remains to prevent catastrophe. Without such honesty, there is no hope of a decent future.
So, the bad news is that we're in trouble.
The worse news is that the mainstream political culture cannot face this reality.
View the Original article
In mainstream politics in the United States, everyone agrees on one thing: We're number one. We're special. We're America. We're on top, where we deserve to be.
In dissident politics in the United States, we have long argued that this quest for economic and military dominance can't be squared with basic moral and political principles. We're on top, but it's unjust and unsustainable.
Whether or not the United States has ever had a legitimate claim to that top spot -- or whether there should be spots on top for any nation(s) -- the days of uncontested dominance are over: Our economy is in permanent decline and our military power continues to fade. We are still the wealthiest society in history, but we are no longer the dynamic heart of the global economy. Our military is still able to destroy at will, but the wars of the past decade have demonstrated the limits of that barbarism.
How should the U.S. public react to this shift? One approach would be to acknowledge that predatory corporate capitalism based on greed and First World imperialism based on violence have produced obscene levels of inequality, both within societies and between societies, that are inconsistent with those basic moral and political principles. Our task is to reshape systems and institutions before it's too late.
That kind of critical self-reflection also leads to the conclusion that our society not only fails on the criterion of social justice but also is ecologically unsustainable. We are a profligate, consumption-mad society, in a world in which unsustainable living arrangements are the norm in the developed world and spreading quickly in the developing world. We can't predict the time frame for collapse if we continue on this trajectory, but we can be reasonably certain that without major changes in our relationship to the larger living world the ecosphere will at some point (likely within decades) be unable to support large-scale human life as we know it.
These crises, if honestly acknowledged and squarely faced, would test our capacity to analyze and adapt -- there's no guarantee that enough time remains to prevent catastrophe. Without such honesty, there is no hope of a decent future.
So, the bad news is that we're in trouble.
The worse news is that the mainstream political culture cannot face this reality.
View the Original article
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)