Lots of talk these days about the bullying of young boys and girls in school by more aggressive students. This brings to my mind the biggest bully of all: the biotech company, Monsanto Corporation.
Taken in context, Monsanto’s list of corporate crimes should have been enough to pull their corporate charter years ago. And yet we allow them to continue to destroy our food supply, our health and the planet. Monsanto or Monsatan?
Take a look at the company’s track record and decide for yourself.
Agent Orange:
Monsanto was the major financial beneficiary of this herbicide used to defoliate the jungles of Vietnam and destroy the health of American troops and their offspring. It also allowed Monsanto and other chemical companies to appeal for and receive protection from veterans seeking damages for their exposure to Agent Orange and any future biotech creations.
Aspartame:
As far back as 1994, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services released a report listing 94 health issues caused by aspartame. It has been shown to cause slow but serious damage to the human body and yet it is used extensively in many commercial products.
Saccharin:
Studies have shown that saccharin caused cancer in test rats and mice; and in six human studies, including one done by the National Cancer Institute, that consuming artificial sweeteners, such as saccharin and cyclamate, resulted in bladder cancer.
Bovine Growth Hormone (rBGH):
A genetically modified hormone injected into dairy cows to produce more milk, despite the fact that more milk was needed. The cows suffer excruciating pain due to swollen udders and mastitis. The pus from the infection enters the milk supply requiring more antibiotics to be given to the cows. BST milk may also cause breast cancer, colon cancer, and prostate cancer in humans.
RoundUp:
The world's most commonly used herbicide and weed killer has been linked to non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, in a study by eminent oncologists Dr. Lennart Hardell and Dr. Mikael Eriksson of Sweden. Used on genetically modified crops resistant to RoundUp's active ingredient glyphosate, environmentalists and health professionals are concerned that far from reducing herbicide use, glyphosate-resistant crops may result in increased residues in food to which consumers will be exposed.
Genetically Modified Crops (GMO):
Monsanto created Frankenfoods by gene-splicing corn, cotton, soy, and canola with DNA from a foreign source. Consequently these crops are resistant to massive doses of the herbicide, RoundUp, but in turn herbicide-resistant superweeds are taking over. After running into resistance in the west, Monsanto is pushing GMO crops in third-world countries.
According to physicist, ecologist, and activist Dr. Vandana Shiva, “Syugenta and Monsanto are rushing ahead with the mapping and patenting of the rice genome. If they could, they would own rice and its genes, even though the 200,000 rice varieties that give us diverse traits have been bred and evolved by rice farmers of Asia collectively over millennia. Their claim to inventing rice is a violence against the integrity of biodiversity and life forms; it is a violence against the knowledge of third-world farmers.”
Terminator Seeds:
A technology that produces sterile grains unable to germinate, forcing farmers to buy seeds from Monsanto rather than save and reuse the seeds from their harvest. Terminators can cross-pollinate and contaminate local non-sterile crops putting in danger the future seed supply and eventually giving control of the world’s food supply to Monsanto and the GM industry.
Standard American Diet:
According to the Organic Consumers Association, “There is a direct correlation between our genetically engineered food supply and the $2 trillion the U.S. spends annually on medical care, namely an epidemic of diet-related chronic diseases.
Instead of healthy fruits, vegetables, grains, and grass-fed animal products, U.S. factory farms and food processors produce a glut of genetically engineered junk foods that generate heart disease, stroke, diabetes and cancer. Low fruit and vegetable consumption is directly costing the United States $56 billion a year in diet-related chronic diseases.”
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ygreen/20110331/sc_ygreen/eightwaysmonsantoisdestroyingourhealth;_ylt=A2KJjaiemphNQywAwfOTmYlQ
Sphere: Related Content
Showing posts with label Monsanto. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Monsanto. Show all posts
Monday, April 4, 2011
Friday, February 18, 2011
Whole Foods "Sells Out" to Monsanto
This is disgusting. I abhor the hold Monsanto is getting on our food supply. Please consider NOT shopping at Whole Foods.
_____________________________________________________________________
The Organic Elite Surrenders to Monsanto: What Now?
* By Ronnie Cummins
Organic Consumers Association, Jan 27, 2011
Straight to the Source
http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/163066-whole-foods-has-sold-out-to-monsanto
"The policy set for GE alfalfa will most likely guide policies for other GE crops as well. True coexistence is a must." - Whole Foods Market, Jan. 21, 2011
In the wake of a 12-year battle to keep Monsanto's Genetically Engineered (GE) crops from contaminating the nation's 25,000 organic farms and ranches, America's organic consumers and producers are facing betrayal. A self-appointed cabal of the Organic Elite, spearheaded by Whole Foods Market, Organic Valley, and Stonyfield Farm, has decided it's time to surrender to Monsanto. Top executives from these companies have publicly admitted that they no longer oppose the mass commercialization of GE crops, such as Monsanto's controversial Roundup Ready alfalfa, and are prepared to sit down and cut a deal for "coexistence" with Monsanto and USDA biotech cheerleader Tom Vilsack.
In a cleverly worded, but profoundly misleading email sent to its customers last week, Whole Foods Market, while proclaiming their support for organics and "seed purity," gave the green light to USDA bureaucrats to approve the "conditional deregulation" of Monsanto's genetically engineered, herbicide-resistant alfalfa. Beyond the regulatory euphemism of "conditional deregulation," this means that WFM and their colleagues are willing to go along with the massive planting of a chemical and energy-intensive GE perennial crop, alfalfa; guaranteed to spread its mutant genes and seeds across the nation; guaranteed to contaminate the alfalfa fed to organic animals; guaranteed to lead to massive poisoning of farm workers and destruction of the essential soil food web by the toxic herbicide, Roundup; and guaranteed to produce Roundup-resistant superweeds that will require even more deadly herbicides such as 2,4 D to be sprayed on millions of acres of alfalfa across the U.S.
In exchange for allowing Monsanto's premeditated pollution of the alfalfa gene pool, WFM wants "compensation." In exchange for a new assault on farmworkers and rural communities (a recent large-scale Swedish study found that spraying Roundup doubles farm workers' and rural residents' risk of getting cancer), WFM expects the pro-biotech USDA to begin to regulate rather than cheerlead for Monsanto. In payment for a new broad spectrum attack on the soil's crucial ability to provide nutrition for food crops and to sequester dangerous greenhouse gases (recent studies show that Roundup devastates essential soil microorganisms that provide plant nutrition and sequester climate-destabilizing greenhouse gases), WFM wants the Biotech Bully of St. Louis to agree to pay "compensation" (i.e. hush money) to farmers "for any losses related to the contamination of his crop."
In its email of Jan. 21, 2011 WFM calls for "public oversight by the USDA rather than reliance on the biotechnology industry," even though WFM knows full well that federal regulations on Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs) do not require pre-market safety testing, nor labeling; and that even federal judges have repeatedly ruled that so-called government "oversight" of Frankencrops such as Monsanto's sugar beets and alfalfa is basically a farce. At the end of its email, WFM admits that its surrender to Monsanto is permanent: "The policy set for GE alfalfa will most likely guide policies for other GE crops as well True coexistence is a must."
Why Is Organic Inc. Surrendering?
According to informed sources, the CEOs of WFM and Stonyfield are personal friends of former Iowa governor, now USDA Secretary, Tom Vilsack, and in fact made financial contributions to Vilsack's previous electoral campaigns. Vilsack was hailed as "Governor of the Year" in 2001 by the Biotechnology Industry Organization, and traveled in a Monsanto corporate jet on the campaign trail. Perhaps even more fundamental to Organic Inc.'s abject surrender is the fact that the organic elite has become more and more isolated from the concerns and passions of organic consumers and locavores. The Organic Inc. CEOs are tired of activist pressure, boycotts, and petitions. Several of them have told me this to my face. They apparently believe that the battle against GMOs has been lost, and that it's time to reach for the consolation prize. The consolation prize they seek is a so-called "coexistence" between the biotech Behemoth and the organic community that will lull the public to sleep and greenwash the unpleasant fact that Monsanto's unlabeled and unregulated genetically engineered crops are now spreading their toxic genes on 1/3 of U.S. (and 1/10 of global) crop land.
WFM and most of the largest organic companies have deliberately separated themselves from anti-GMO efforts and cut off all funding to campaigns working to label or ban GMOs. The so-called Non-GMO Project, funded by Whole Foods and giant wholesaler United Natural Foods (UNFI) is basically a greenwashing effort (although the 100% organic companies involved in this project seem to be operating in good faith) to show that certified organic foods are basically free from GMOs (we already know this since GMOs are banned in organic production), while failing to focus on so-called "natural" foods, which constitute most of WFM and UNFI's sales and are routinely contaminated with GMOs.
From their "business as usual" perspective, successful lawsuits against GMOs filed by public interest groups such as the Center for Food Safety; or noisy attacks on Monsanto by groups like the Organic Consumers Association, create bad publicity, rattle their big customers such as Wal-Mart, Target, Kroger, Costco, Supervalu, Publix and Safeway; and remind consumers that organic crops and foods such as corn, soybeans, and canola are slowly but surely becoming contaminated by Monsanto's GMOs.
Whole Food's Dirty Little Secret: Most of the So-Called "Natural" Processed Foods and Animal Products They Sell Are Contaminated with GMOs
The main reason, however, why Whole Foods is pleading for coexistence with Monsanto, Dow, Bayer, Syngenta, BASF and the rest of the biotech bullies, is that they desperately want the controversy surrounding genetically engineered foods and crops to go away. Why? Because they know, just as we do, that 2/3 of WFM's $9 billion annual sales is derived from so-called "natural" processed foods and animal products that are contaminated with GMOs. We and our allies have tested their so-called "natural" products (no doubt WFM's lab has too) containing non-organic corn and soy, and guess what: they're all contaminated with GMOs, in contrast to their certified organic products, which are basically free of GMOs, or else contain barely detectable trace amounts.
Approximately 2/3 of the products sold by Whole Foods Market and their main distributor, United Natural Foods (UNFI) are not certified organic, but rather are conventional (chemical-intensive and GMO-tainted) foods and products disguised as "natural."
Unprecedented wholesale and retail control of the organic marketplace by UNFI and Whole Foods, employing a business model of selling twice as much so-called "natural" food as certified organic food, coupled with the takeover of many organic companies by multinational food corporations such as Dean Foods, threatens the growth of the organic movement.
Covering Up GMO Contamination: Perpetrating "Natural" Fraud
Many well-meaning consumers are confused about the difference between conventional products marketed as "natural," and those nutritionally/environmentally superior and climate-friendly products that are "certified organic."
Retail stores like WFM and wholesale distributors like UNFI have failed to educate their customers about the qualitative difference between natural and certified organic, conveniently glossing over the fact that nearly all of the processed "natural" foods and products they sell contain GMOs, or else come from a "natural" supply chain where animals are force-fed GMO grains in factory farms or Confined Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs).
A troubling trend in organics today is the calculated shift on the part of certain large formerly organic brands from certified organic ingredients and products to so-called "natural" ingredients. With the exception of the "grass-fed and grass-finished" meat sector, most "natural" meat, dairy, and eggs are coming from animals reared on GMO grains and drugs, and confined, entirely, or for a good portion of their lives, in CAFOs.
Whole Foods and UNFI are maximizing their profits by selling quasi-natural products at premium organic prices. Organic consumers are increasingly left without certified organic choices while genuine organic farmers and ranchers continue to lose market share to "natural" imposters. It's no wonder that less than 1% of American farmland is certified organic, while well-intentioned but misled consumers have boosted organic and "natural" purchases to $80 billion annually-approximately 12% of all grocery store sales.
The Solution: Truth-in-Labeling Will Enable Consumers to Drive So-Called "Natural" GMO and CAFO-Tainted Foods Off the Market
There can be no such thing as "coexistence" with a reckless industry that undermines public health, destroys biodiversity, damages the environment, tortures and poisons animals, destabilizes the climate, and economically devastates the world's 1.5 billion seed-saving small farmers. There is no such thing as coexistence between GMOs and organics in the European Union. Why? Because in the EU there are almost no GMO crops under cultivation, nor GM consumer food products on supermarket shelves. And why is this? Because under EU law, all foods containing GMOs or GMO ingredients must be labeled. Consumers have the freedom to choose or not to choose GMOs; while farmers, food processors, and retailers have (at least legally) the right to lace foods with GMOs, as long as they are safety-tested and labeled. Of course the EU food industry understands that consumers, for the most part, do not want to purchase or consume GE foods. European farmers and food companies, even junk food purveyors like McDonald's and Wal-Mart, understand quite well the concept expressed by a Monsanto executive when GMOs first came on the market: "If you put a label on genetically engineered food you might as well put a skull and crossbones on it."
The biotech industry and Organic Inc. are supremely conscious of the fact that North American consumers, like their European counterparts, are wary and suspicious of GMO foods. Even without a PhD, consumers understand you don't want your food safety or environmental sustainability decisions to be made by out-of-control chemical companies like Monsanto, Dow, or Dupont - the same people who brought you toxic pesticides, Agent Orange, PCBs, and now global warming. Industry leaders are acutely aware of the fact that every single industry or government poll over the last 16 years has shown that 85-95% of American consumers want mandatory labels on GMO foods. Why? So that we can avoid buying them. GMO foods have absolutely no benefits for consumers or the environment, only hazards. This is why Monsanto and their friends in the Bush, Clinton, and Obama administrations have prevented consumer GMO truth-in-labeling laws from getting a public discussion in Congress.
Although Congressman Dennis Kucinich (Democrat, Ohio) recently introduced a bill in Congress calling for mandatory labeling and safety testing for GMOs, don't hold your breath for Congress to take a stand for truth-in-labeling and consumers' right to know what's in their food. Especially since the 2010 Supreme Court decision in the so-called "Citizens United" case gave big corporations and billionaires the right to spend unlimited amounts of money (and remain anonymous, as they do so) to buy media coverage and elections, our chances of passing federal GMO labeling laws against the wishes of Monsanto and Food Inc. are all but non-existent. Perfectly dramatizing the "Revolving Door" between Monsanto and the Federal Government, Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, formerly chief counsel for Monsanto, delivered one of the decisive votes in the Citizens United case, in effect giving Monsanto and other biotech bullies the right to buy the votes it needs in the U.S. Congress.
With big money controlling Congress and the media, we have little choice but to shift our focus and go local. We've got to concentrate our forces where our leverage and power lie, in the marketplace, at the retail level; pressuring retail food stores to voluntarily label their products; while on the legislative front we must organize a broad coalition to pass mandatory GMO (and CAFO) labeling laws, at the city, county, and state levels.
The Organic Consumers Association, joined by our consumer, farmer, environmental, and labor allies, has just launched a nationwide Truth-in-Labeling campaign to stop Monsanto and the Biotech Bullies from force-feeding unlabeled GMOs to animals and humans.
Utilizing scientific data, legal precedent, and consumer power the OCA and our local coalitions will educate and mobilize at the grassroots level to pressure giant supermarket chains (Wal-Mart, Kroger, Costco, Safeway, Supervalu, and Publix) and natural food retailers such as Whole Foods and Trader Joe's to voluntarily implement "truth-in-labeling" practices for GMOs and CAFO products; while simultaneously organizing a critical mass to pass mandatory local and state truth-in-labeling ordinances - similar to labeling laws already in effect for country of origin, irradiated food, allergens, and carcinogens. If local and state government bodies refuse to take action, wherever possible we must attempt to gather sufficient petition signatures and place these truth-in-labeling initiatives directly on the ballot in 2011 or 2012. If you're interesting in helping organize or coordinate a Millions Against Monsanto and Factory Farms Truth-in-Labeling campaign in your local community, sign up here: http://organicconsumers.org/oca-volunteer/
To pressure Whole Foods Market and the nation's largest supermarket chains to voluntarily adopt truth-in-labeling practices sign here, and circulate this petition widely: http://www.organicconsumers.org/articles/article_22309.cfm Sphere: Related Content
_____________________________________________________________________
The Organic Elite Surrenders to Monsanto: What Now?
* By Ronnie Cummins
Organic Consumers Association, Jan 27, 2011
Straight to the Source
http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/163066-whole-foods-has-sold-out-to-monsanto
"The policy set for GE alfalfa will most likely guide policies for other GE crops as well. True coexistence is a must." - Whole Foods Market, Jan. 21, 2011
In the wake of a 12-year battle to keep Monsanto's Genetically Engineered (GE) crops from contaminating the nation's 25,000 organic farms and ranches, America's organic consumers and producers are facing betrayal. A self-appointed cabal of the Organic Elite, spearheaded by Whole Foods Market, Organic Valley, and Stonyfield Farm, has decided it's time to surrender to Monsanto. Top executives from these companies have publicly admitted that they no longer oppose the mass commercialization of GE crops, such as Monsanto's controversial Roundup Ready alfalfa, and are prepared to sit down and cut a deal for "coexistence" with Monsanto and USDA biotech cheerleader Tom Vilsack.
In a cleverly worded, but profoundly misleading email sent to its customers last week, Whole Foods Market, while proclaiming their support for organics and "seed purity," gave the green light to USDA bureaucrats to approve the "conditional deregulation" of Monsanto's genetically engineered, herbicide-resistant alfalfa. Beyond the regulatory euphemism of "conditional deregulation," this means that WFM and their colleagues are willing to go along with the massive planting of a chemical and energy-intensive GE perennial crop, alfalfa; guaranteed to spread its mutant genes and seeds across the nation; guaranteed to contaminate the alfalfa fed to organic animals; guaranteed to lead to massive poisoning of farm workers and destruction of the essential soil food web by the toxic herbicide, Roundup; and guaranteed to produce Roundup-resistant superweeds that will require even more deadly herbicides such as 2,4 D to be sprayed on millions of acres of alfalfa across the U.S.
In exchange for allowing Monsanto's premeditated pollution of the alfalfa gene pool, WFM wants "compensation." In exchange for a new assault on farmworkers and rural communities (a recent large-scale Swedish study found that spraying Roundup doubles farm workers' and rural residents' risk of getting cancer), WFM expects the pro-biotech USDA to begin to regulate rather than cheerlead for Monsanto. In payment for a new broad spectrum attack on the soil's crucial ability to provide nutrition for food crops and to sequester dangerous greenhouse gases (recent studies show that Roundup devastates essential soil microorganisms that provide plant nutrition and sequester climate-destabilizing greenhouse gases), WFM wants the Biotech Bully of St. Louis to agree to pay "compensation" (i.e. hush money) to farmers "for any losses related to the contamination of his crop."
In its email of Jan. 21, 2011 WFM calls for "public oversight by the USDA rather than reliance on the biotechnology industry," even though WFM knows full well that federal regulations on Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs) do not require pre-market safety testing, nor labeling; and that even federal judges have repeatedly ruled that so-called government "oversight" of Frankencrops such as Monsanto's sugar beets and alfalfa is basically a farce. At the end of its email, WFM admits that its surrender to Monsanto is permanent: "The policy set for GE alfalfa will most likely guide policies for other GE crops as well True coexistence is a must."
Why Is Organic Inc. Surrendering?
According to informed sources, the CEOs of WFM and Stonyfield are personal friends of former Iowa governor, now USDA Secretary, Tom Vilsack, and in fact made financial contributions to Vilsack's previous electoral campaigns. Vilsack was hailed as "Governor of the Year" in 2001 by the Biotechnology Industry Organization, and traveled in a Monsanto corporate jet on the campaign trail. Perhaps even more fundamental to Organic Inc.'s abject surrender is the fact that the organic elite has become more and more isolated from the concerns and passions of organic consumers and locavores. The Organic Inc. CEOs are tired of activist pressure, boycotts, and petitions. Several of them have told me this to my face. They apparently believe that the battle against GMOs has been lost, and that it's time to reach for the consolation prize. The consolation prize they seek is a so-called "coexistence" between the biotech Behemoth and the organic community that will lull the public to sleep and greenwash the unpleasant fact that Monsanto's unlabeled and unregulated genetically engineered crops are now spreading their toxic genes on 1/3 of U.S. (and 1/10 of global) crop land.
WFM and most of the largest organic companies have deliberately separated themselves from anti-GMO efforts and cut off all funding to campaigns working to label or ban GMOs. The so-called Non-GMO Project, funded by Whole Foods and giant wholesaler United Natural Foods (UNFI) is basically a greenwashing effort (although the 100% organic companies involved in this project seem to be operating in good faith) to show that certified organic foods are basically free from GMOs (we already know this since GMOs are banned in organic production), while failing to focus on so-called "natural" foods, which constitute most of WFM and UNFI's sales and are routinely contaminated with GMOs.
From their "business as usual" perspective, successful lawsuits against GMOs filed by public interest groups such as the Center for Food Safety; or noisy attacks on Monsanto by groups like the Organic Consumers Association, create bad publicity, rattle their big customers such as Wal-Mart, Target, Kroger, Costco, Supervalu, Publix and Safeway; and remind consumers that organic crops and foods such as corn, soybeans, and canola are slowly but surely becoming contaminated by Monsanto's GMOs.
Whole Food's Dirty Little Secret: Most of the So-Called "Natural" Processed Foods and Animal Products They Sell Are Contaminated with GMOs
The main reason, however, why Whole Foods is pleading for coexistence with Monsanto, Dow, Bayer, Syngenta, BASF and the rest of the biotech bullies, is that they desperately want the controversy surrounding genetically engineered foods and crops to go away. Why? Because they know, just as we do, that 2/3 of WFM's $9 billion annual sales is derived from so-called "natural" processed foods and animal products that are contaminated with GMOs. We and our allies have tested their so-called "natural" products (no doubt WFM's lab has too) containing non-organic corn and soy, and guess what: they're all contaminated with GMOs, in contrast to their certified organic products, which are basically free of GMOs, or else contain barely detectable trace amounts.
Approximately 2/3 of the products sold by Whole Foods Market and their main distributor, United Natural Foods (UNFI) are not certified organic, but rather are conventional (chemical-intensive and GMO-tainted) foods and products disguised as "natural."
Unprecedented wholesale and retail control of the organic marketplace by UNFI and Whole Foods, employing a business model of selling twice as much so-called "natural" food as certified organic food, coupled with the takeover of many organic companies by multinational food corporations such as Dean Foods, threatens the growth of the organic movement.
Covering Up GMO Contamination: Perpetrating "Natural" Fraud
Many well-meaning consumers are confused about the difference between conventional products marketed as "natural," and those nutritionally/environmentally superior and climate-friendly products that are "certified organic."
Retail stores like WFM and wholesale distributors like UNFI have failed to educate their customers about the qualitative difference between natural and certified organic, conveniently glossing over the fact that nearly all of the processed "natural" foods and products they sell contain GMOs, or else come from a "natural" supply chain where animals are force-fed GMO grains in factory farms or Confined Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs).
A troubling trend in organics today is the calculated shift on the part of certain large formerly organic brands from certified organic ingredients and products to so-called "natural" ingredients. With the exception of the "grass-fed and grass-finished" meat sector, most "natural" meat, dairy, and eggs are coming from animals reared on GMO grains and drugs, and confined, entirely, or for a good portion of their lives, in CAFOs.
Whole Foods and UNFI are maximizing their profits by selling quasi-natural products at premium organic prices. Organic consumers are increasingly left without certified organic choices while genuine organic farmers and ranchers continue to lose market share to "natural" imposters. It's no wonder that less than 1% of American farmland is certified organic, while well-intentioned but misled consumers have boosted organic and "natural" purchases to $80 billion annually-approximately 12% of all grocery store sales.
The Solution: Truth-in-Labeling Will Enable Consumers to Drive So-Called "Natural" GMO and CAFO-Tainted Foods Off the Market
There can be no such thing as "coexistence" with a reckless industry that undermines public health, destroys biodiversity, damages the environment, tortures and poisons animals, destabilizes the climate, and economically devastates the world's 1.5 billion seed-saving small farmers. There is no such thing as coexistence between GMOs and organics in the European Union. Why? Because in the EU there are almost no GMO crops under cultivation, nor GM consumer food products on supermarket shelves. And why is this? Because under EU law, all foods containing GMOs or GMO ingredients must be labeled. Consumers have the freedom to choose or not to choose GMOs; while farmers, food processors, and retailers have (at least legally) the right to lace foods with GMOs, as long as they are safety-tested and labeled. Of course the EU food industry understands that consumers, for the most part, do not want to purchase or consume GE foods. European farmers and food companies, even junk food purveyors like McDonald's and Wal-Mart, understand quite well the concept expressed by a Monsanto executive when GMOs first came on the market: "If you put a label on genetically engineered food you might as well put a skull and crossbones on it."
The biotech industry and Organic Inc. are supremely conscious of the fact that North American consumers, like their European counterparts, are wary and suspicious of GMO foods. Even without a PhD, consumers understand you don't want your food safety or environmental sustainability decisions to be made by out-of-control chemical companies like Monsanto, Dow, or Dupont - the same people who brought you toxic pesticides, Agent Orange, PCBs, and now global warming. Industry leaders are acutely aware of the fact that every single industry or government poll over the last 16 years has shown that 85-95% of American consumers want mandatory labels on GMO foods. Why? So that we can avoid buying them. GMO foods have absolutely no benefits for consumers or the environment, only hazards. This is why Monsanto and their friends in the Bush, Clinton, and Obama administrations have prevented consumer GMO truth-in-labeling laws from getting a public discussion in Congress.
Although Congressman Dennis Kucinich (Democrat, Ohio) recently introduced a bill in Congress calling for mandatory labeling and safety testing for GMOs, don't hold your breath for Congress to take a stand for truth-in-labeling and consumers' right to know what's in their food. Especially since the 2010 Supreme Court decision in the so-called "Citizens United" case gave big corporations and billionaires the right to spend unlimited amounts of money (and remain anonymous, as they do so) to buy media coverage and elections, our chances of passing federal GMO labeling laws against the wishes of Monsanto and Food Inc. are all but non-existent. Perfectly dramatizing the "Revolving Door" between Monsanto and the Federal Government, Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, formerly chief counsel for Monsanto, delivered one of the decisive votes in the Citizens United case, in effect giving Monsanto and other biotech bullies the right to buy the votes it needs in the U.S. Congress.
With big money controlling Congress and the media, we have little choice but to shift our focus and go local. We've got to concentrate our forces where our leverage and power lie, in the marketplace, at the retail level; pressuring retail food stores to voluntarily label their products; while on the legislative front we must organize a broad coalition to pass mandatory GMO (and CAFO) labeling laws, at the city, county, and state levels.
The Organic Consumers Association, joined by our consumer, farmer, environmental, and labor allies, has just launched a nationwide Truth-in-Labeling campaign to stop Monsanto and the Biotech Bullies from force-feeding unlabeled GMOs to animals and humans.
Utilizing scientific data, legal precedent, and consumer power the OCA and our local coalitions will educate and mobilize at the grassroots level to pressure giant supermarket chains (Wal-Mart, Kroger, Costco, Safeway, Supervalu, and Publix) and natural food retailers such as Whole Foods and Trader Joe's to voluntarily implement "truth-in-labeling" practices for GMOs and CAFO products; while simultaneously organizing a critical mass to pass mandatory local and state truth-in-labeling ordinances - similar to labeling laws already in effect for country of origin, irradiated food, allergens, and carcinogens. If local and state government bodies refuse to take action, wherever possible we must attempt to gather sufficient petition signatures and place these truth-in-labeling initiatives directly on the ballot in 2011 or 2012. If you're interesting in helping organize or coordinate a Millions Against Monsanto and Factory Farms Truth-in-Labeling campaign in your local community, sign up here: http://organicconsumers.org/oca-volunteer/
To pressure Whole Foods Market and the nation's largest supermarket chains to voluntarily adopt truth-in-labeling practices sign here, and circulate this petition widely: http://www.organicconsumers.org/articles/article_22309.cfm Sphere: Related Content
Wednesday, January 26, 2011
Monsanto launches deceptive ad campaign in desperate attempt to improve image
(NaturalNews) Monsanto has become the new Marlboro, with a new advertising campaign designed to improved its hopelessly-tarnished image. Except instead of handsome cowboys smoking cigarettes, Monsanto is plastering images of hardy American farmers and their crop fields on billboards and bus stops throughout the nation. The new ad campaign, of course, is a desperate attempt to convince the public that the company is not only working in the best interests of U.S. agriculture, but is also responsible for creating and maintaining millions of American farm jobs in the process, both of which are patently false.
Monsanto has always glowingly endorsed and self-promoted itself as the agricultural savior of the world, despite the fact that its biotechnological developments have led to far more agricultural problems than ever before. Pesticide and herbicide resistance, widespread environmental contamination, perpetual dependence on non-renewable seeds, the emergence of "superweeds", and even crop failures are included on the laundry list of genetically-modified (GM) destruction foisted on the public by Monsanto.
But the company is working overtime to cover up reality with a steady stream of deceptive marketing propaganda. Monsanto's website states:
"9 billion people to feed. A changing climate. NOW WHAT? Producing more. Conserving more. Improving farmers' lives. That's sustainable agriculture. And that's what Monsanto is all about."
It is truly amazing that a company propagating genetically-engineered, self-destructing seeds that require heavy pesticide and herbicide applications in order to grow as intended, would claim that its agricultural system is sustainable. In reality, Monsanto's technology is arguably the most unsustainable form of agriculture.
Monsanto also claims that its technologies produce more food, conserve resources and improve lives. But in practice, its biotechnology systems deplete soil health, pollute the environment, and force farmers to be dependent on biotechnology companies for seeds and chemicals, all of which are hardly a recipe for sustainability and self-dependancy.
http://www.naturalnews.com/031103_Monsanto_public_relations.html Sphere: Related Content
Monsanto has always glowingly endorsed and self-promoted itself as the agricultural savior of the world, despite the fact that its biotechnological developments have led to far more agricultural problems than ever before. Pesticide and herbicide resistance, widespread environmental contamination, perpetual dependence on non-renewable seeds, the emergence of "superweeds", and even crop failures are included on the laundry list of genetically-modified (GM) destruction foisted on the public by Monsanto.
But the company is working overtime to cover up reality with a steady stream of deceptive marketing propaganda. Monsanto's website states:
"9 billion people to feed. A changing climate. NOW WHAT? Producing more. Conserving more. Improving farmers' lives. That's sustainable agriculture. And that's what Monsanto is all about."
It is truly amazing that a company propagating genetically-engineered, self-destructing seeds that require heavy pesticide and herbicide applications in order to grow as intended, would claim that its agricultural system is sustainable. In reality, Monsanto's technology is arguably the most unsustainable form of agriculture.
Monsanto also claims that its technologies produce more food, conserve resources and improve lives. But in practice, its biotechnology systems deplete soil health, pollute the environment, and force farmers to be dependent on biotechnology companies for seeds and chemicals, all of which are hardly a recipe for sustainability and self-dependancy.
http://www.naturalnews.com/031103_Monsanto_public_relations.html Sphere: Related Content
Tuesday, December 14, 2010
Judge Rules GMOs Violate Environmental Law
(sent to me by Patty S., thanks!)
(NaturalNews) For those of us wondering how bad the untested genetically modified food experiment is going to get before it gets any better, a ray of hope was just offered. A San Francisco judge, the very honorable, Judge Jeffrey White just ruled that the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service violated environmental law because of inadequate environmental testing of genetically modified sugar beets. He ruled that the agency failed to see if the genetically altered beets would eventually share their funky pesticide proof genes with other crops. Judge White noted that pollen from sugar beets can be blown long distances and pollinate other crops, including table beets and chard.
White wrote, “The potential elimination of farmers’ choice to grow non-genetically engineered crops, or consumers’ choice to eat non-genetically engineered food … has a significant effect on the human environment.”
The judge ordered the federal agency to produce an environmental impact statement after taking a hard look at the issue. A lesser look by the agency found that the sharing of genetically altered pollen was no cause for concern.
This is the second blow for Monsanto and according the Associated Press, a “similar ruling in 2007 forced a ban on planting Roundup Ready alfalfa until a re-examination was done.” That environmental impact statement has yet to be completed, so it effectively halted the growth and sale of GMO alfalfa.
About half of the sugar beets used in the United States are currently Monsanto’s genetically modified variety and the judge didn’t rule about the harvest of the current crop.
If you haven’t been already, it’s wise to avoid sugar for a while to make sure you’re not consuming genetically modified sugar beets.
Genetically modified foods have been linked to smaller, less developed brains, livers and testicles. GMO’s have been found to enlarge other tissues, including the pancreas and intestines. They’ve been known to atrophy the liver, while causing structural changes in the stomach and intestines. GMOs have additionally been linked to infertility and allergies. Here`s more: http://www.saynotogmos.org/paper.pdf.
All of the health problems associated with consuming genetically modified foods made the news in Europe years ago, when genetically modified crops were new. The citizens of Europe rebelled, which is why genetically altered foods are currently banned, or mostly labeled, in Europe.
In the U.S., the news wasn’t covered by mainstream outlets. As a consequence genetically modified foods are not labeled and consumers remain largely unaware. Genetically modified ingredients are available in the large majority of processed foods, and in the U.S. it’s actually illegal for manufacturers to label GMO products, as GMO products.
U.S. officials have been cited as saying that such labeling would “confuse consumers,” and it`s widely known that the large majority of consumers don’t want to eat genetically modified foods. Their logic has been: if consumers knew which foods were genetically modified, they would avoid them and thereby make the wrong choice. The official said to have explained the government’s logic at an international Codex meeting later denied doing so.
Organic farmers, food safety advocates and conservation groups brought the lawsuit. According to Earthjustice attorney Paul Achitoff, on Oct. 30 they will ask the judge for an injunction to ban new plantings until the environmental impact statement is complete.
An American Sugar Beet Growers Association spokesman said the association is going to fight for the right to grow genetically modified sugar beets. It wasn’t disclosed if, or how much, funding the association receives from Monsanto.
Genetically modified sugar beets are currently grown in eleven states and on 1.1 million acres. Sphere: Related Content
(NaturalNews) For those of us wondering how bad the untested genetically modified food experiment is going to get before it gets any better, a ray of hope was just offered. A San Francisco judge, the very honorable, Judge Jeffrey White just ruled that the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service violated environmental law because of inadequate environmental testing of genetically modified sugar beets. He ruled that the agency failed to see if the genetically altered beets would eventually share their funky pesticide proof genes with other crops. Judge White noted that pollen from sugar beets can be blown long distances and pollinate other crops, including table beets and chard.
White wrote, “The potential elimination of farmers’ choice to grow non-genetically engineered crops, or consumers’ choice to eat non-genetically engineered food … has a significant effect on the human environment.”
The judge ordered the federal agency to produce an environmental impact statement after taking a hard look at the issue. A lesser look by the agency found that the sharing of genetically altered pollen was no cause for concern.
This is the second blow for Monsanto and according the Associated Press, a “similar ruling in 2007 forced a ban on planting Roundup Ready alfalfa until a re-examination was done.” That environmental impact statement has yet to be completed, so it effectively halted the growth and sale of GMO alfalfa.
About half of the sugar beets used in the United States are currently Monsanto’s genetically modified variety and the judge didn’t rule about the harvest of the current crop.
If you haven’t been already, it’s wise to avoid sugar for a while to make sure you’re not consuming genetically modified sugar beets.
Genetically modified foods have been linked to smaller, less developed brains, livers and testicles. GMO’s have been found to enlarge other tissues, including the pancreas and intestines. They’ve been known to atrophy the liver, while causing structural changes in the stomach and intestines. GMOs have additionally been linked to infertility and allergies. Here`s more: http://www.saynotogmos.org/paper.pdf.
All of the health problems associated with consuming genetically modified foods made the news in Europe years ago, when genetically modified crops were new. The citizens of Europe rebelled, which is why genetically altered foods are currently banned, or mostly labeled, in Europe.
In the U.S., the news wasn’t covered by mainstream outlets. As a consequence genetically modified foods are not labeled and consumers remain largely unaware. Genetically modified ingredients are available in the large majority of processed foods, and in the U.S. it’s actually illegal for manufacturers to label GMO products, as GMO products.
U.S. officials have been cited as saying that such labeling would “confuse consumers,” and it`s widely known that the large majority of consumers don’t want to eat genetically modified foods. Their logic has been: if consumers knew which foods were genetically modified, they would avoid them and thereby make the wrong choice. The official said to have explained the government’s logic at an international Codex meeting later denied doing so.
Organic farmers, food safety advocates and conservation groups brought the lawsuit. According to Earthjustice attorney Paul Achitoff, on Oct. 30 they will ask the judge for an injunction to ban new plantings until the environmental impact statement is complete.
An American Sugar Beet Growers Association spokesman said the association is going to fight for the right to grow genetically modified sugar beets. It wasn’t disclosed if, or how much, funding the association receives from Monsanto.
Genetically modified sugar beets are currently grown in eleven states and on 1.1 million acres. Sphere: Related Content
Monday, November 29, 2010
Take action to stop S.510 "Food Safety Act" - Monday is The Day
Today will be the finale vote on whether the U.S. Senate will ALLOW Americans to continue to grow a garden, or save seeds, to be able to sell produce at farmers markets or not. As if we are their slaves. Please get involved to help stop removing one more freedom from American citizens. If this happens trully good food will no longer be availble in the United States of America any longer. You will only be able to eat what Monsanto and DHS say it will allow you to eat.
Take action to stop S.510 "Food Safety Act"
Your help is needed to halt the tyrannical new "S.510" U.S. Senate bill that could criminalize saving seeds and outlaw backyard garden food production. It is being called "the most dangerous bill in the history of the United States of America."
Senate Bill 510, the Food Safety Modernization Act, has been called "the most dangerous bill in the history of the United States of America." It would grant the U.S. government new authority over the public's right to grow, trade and transport any foods. This would give Big brother the power to regulate the tomato plants in your backyard. It would grant them the power to arrest and imprison people selling cucumbers at farmer's markets. It would criminalize the transporting of organic produce if you don't comply with the authoritarian rules of the federal government.
"It will become the most offensive authority against the cultivation, trade and consumption of food and agricultural products of one's choice. It will be unconstitutional and contrary to natural law or, if you like, the will of God." - Dr. Shiv Chopra, Canada Health whistleblower (http://shivchopra.com/?page_id=2)
This tyrannical law puts all food production (yes, even food produced in your own garden) under the authority of the Department of Homeland Security. Yep -- the very same people running the TSA and its naked body scanner / passenger groping programs.
This law would also give the U.S. government the power to arrest any backyard food producer as a felon (a "smuggler") for merely growing lettuce and selling it at a local farmer's market.
It also sells out U.S. sovereignty over our own food supply by ceding to the authority of both the World Trade Organization (WTO) and Codex Alimentarius.
It would criminalize seed saving (http://foodfreedom.wordpress.com/20...), turning backyard gardeners who save heirloom seeds into common criminals. This is obviously designed to give corporations like Monsanto a monopoly over seeds.
It would create an unreasonable paperwork burden that would put small food producers out of business, resulting in more power over the food supply shifting to large multinational corporations.
I encourage you to read more about this dangerous bill at the Food Freedom blog on Wordpress: http://foodfreedom.wordpress.com/20...
Watch this excellent video on NaturalNews.TV which explains S.510 in more detail:
http://naturalnews.tv/v.asp?v=9209B...
Take action now or lose your right to grow your own food
Sign this petition at Citizens for Health:
http://www.citizens.org/?page_id=2312
Do it today! This is really important.
In addition, the Cornucopia Institute recently sent out an urgent call-to-action email containing the following information: (http://www.cornucopia.org/2010/11/a...)
$.510 Showdown is Monday...
Flood the Senate with Emails NOW!
http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/o/568/blastContent.jsp
FLASH! NOW OVER ONE MILLION EMAILS SAYING "NO!" TO S.510!
Updated information:
http://www.healthfreedomusa.org/?p=7547
What can we do? We can Persevere and Prevail --- if Millions Act Together... nearly a MILLION emails about the fake "safety" bills have gone through our Action Item system since the House took the issue up over a year ago. ANOTHER 15 THOUSAND TODAY!
Food Fascism (yes, that is not too strong a term!) is just three TWO days away!
To prevent this dire outcome, millions of people must act together over the next couple days! Our Senators are home until Monday when they will be back in Washington, at the “lame duck” congressional session.
What do Gerald Celente, Your Retirement and Food Freedom have to do with one another? Participate in the Dr. Rima Reports this Sunday Morning to find out... Dr. Rima's Coffee Clatch...
Even Dr. Coburn’s well-intentioned amendment striping some of the worst clauses from the bill does not go far enough to protect local, organic, family, community food production and distribution! The amendment to which the sponsors and Sen Tester agreed actually reduces the exempt territory from 400 to 275 miles from the farm.
Here are our Talking Points about the bad features of the “Managers’ Version” of the bill: http://www.healthfreedomusa.org/?p=6910
And here our general analysis: http://www.healthfreedomusa.org/?p=7446
Last November Just 150,000 emails over one memorable weekend held the bill in committee for nearly a year; the Week before Thanksgiving our system exceeded 5,000 an hour for many hours!
WE NEED EVEN MORE PUSH BACK RIGHT NOW!
PLEASE contact all your online supporters and associates again — tell them to contact their Senators; we must make this message “go viral” and flood the Senate email system over the next few days! Let them know that a vast and growing transpartisan alliance of health & food freedom advocates, framers, ranchers, gardeners, tea partiers and others have sent millions of messages to Congress: SENATOR: VOTE “NO!” ON S.510!
We do not support any version of the fake “food safety” bill and will work to defund any bill that is adopted and signed into law! We will not forget how each Senator votes on this critical issue!
Action Item (to contact your Senators; please do so at least daily for each member of your household!) – http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/o/568/p/dia/action/public/?action_KEY=4613
Join us to listen and chat about this on Dr. Rima Reports – www.HealthFreedomPortal.org [Every Sunday morning, 9 to noon Central - Oracle Broadcasting].
PS - someone emailed us, "Why are you putting a dollar sign in front of the fake "food safety" bill number?" Answer: because even its proponents admit they'll need to spend nearly One Billion Dollars in the first year to implement this new control scheme... and they never over-estimate! With 4,000 new FDA "inspectors" a whole new army of Federal controllers will be unleashed on our local, natural food production and distribution. The cost will grow and grow... as govt grows to meet the needs of a growing govt! Sphere: Related Content
Take action to stop S.510 "Food Safety Act"
Your help is needed to halt the tyrannical new "S.510" U.S. Senate bill that could criminalize saving seeds and outlaw backyard garden food production. It is being called "the most dangerous bill in the history of the United States of America."
Senate Bill 510, the Food Safety Modernization Act, has been called "the most dangerous bill in the history of the United States of America." It would grant the U.S. government new authority over the public's right to grow, trade and transport any foods. This would give Big brother the power to regulate the tomato plants in your backyard. It would grant them the power to arrest and imprison people selling cucumbers at farmer's markets. It would criminalize the transporting of organic produce if you don't comply with the authoritarian rules of the federal government.
"It will become the most offensive authority against the cultivation, trade and consumption of food and agricultural products of one's choice. It will be unconstitutional and contrary to natural law or, if you like, the will of God." - Dr. Shiv Chopra, Canada Health whistleblower (http://shivchopra.com/?page_id=2)
This tyrannical law puts all food production (yes, even food produced in your own garden) under the authority of the Department of Homeland Security. Yep -- the very same people running the TSA and its naked body scanner / passenger groping programs.
This law would also give the U.S. government the power to arrest any backyard food producer as a felon (a "smuggler") for merely growing lettuce and selling it at a local farmer's market.
It also sells out U.S. sovereignty over our own food supply by ceding to the authority of both the World Trade Organization (WTO) and Codex Alimentarius.
It would criminalize seed saving (http://foodfreedom.wordpress.com/20...), turning backyard gardeners who save heirloom seeds into common criminals. This is obviously designed to give corporations like Monsanto a monopoly over seeds.
It would create an unreasonable paperwork burden that would put small food producers out of business, resulting in more power over the food supply shifting to large multinational corporations.
I encourage you to read more about this dangerous bill at the Food Freedom blog on Wordpress: http://foodfreedom.wordpress.com/20...
Watch this excellent video on NaturalNews.TV which explains S.510 in more detail:
http://naturalnews.tv/v.asp?v=9209B...
Take action now or lose your right to grow your own food
Sign this petition at Citizens for Health:
http://www.citizens.org/?page_id=2312
Do it today! This is really important.
In addition, the Cornucopia Institute recently sent out an urgent call-to-action email containing the following information: (http://www.cornucopia.org/2010/11/a...)
$.510 Showdown is Monday...
Flood the Senate with Emails NOW!
http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/o/568/blastContent.jsp
FLASH! NOW OVER ONE MILLION EMAILS SAYING "NO!" TO S.510!
Updated information:
http://www.healthfreedomusa.org/?p=7547
What can we do? We can Persevere and Prevail --- if Millions Act Together... nearly a MILLION emails about the fake "safety" bills have gone through our Action Item system since the House took the issue up over a year ago. ANOTHER 15 THOUSAND TODAY!
Food Fascism (yes, that is not too strong a term!) is just three TWO days away!
To prevent this dire outcome, millions of people must act together over the next couple days! Our Senators are home until Monday when they will be back in Washington, at the “lame duck” congressional session.
What do Gerald Celente, Your Retirement and Food Freedom have to do with one another? Participate in the Dr. Rima Reports this Sunday Morning to find out... Dr. Rima's Coffee Clatch...
Even Dr. Coburn’s well-intentioned amendment striping some of the worst clauses from the bill does not go far enough to protect local, organic, family, community food production and distribution! The amendment to which the sponsors and Sen Tester agreed actually reduces the exempt territory from 400 to 275 miles from the farm.
Here are our Talking Points about the bad features of the “Managers’ Version” of the bill: http://www.healthfreedomusa.org/?p=6910
And here our general analysis: http://www.healthfreedomusa.org/?p=7446
Last November Just 150,000 emails over one memorable weekend held the bill in committee for nearly a year; the Week before Thanksgiving our system exceeded 5,000 an hour for many hours!
WE NEED EVEN MORE PUSH BACK RIGHT NOW!
PLEASE contact all your online supporters and associates again — tell them to contact their Senators; we must make this message “go viral” and flood the Senate email system over the next few days! Let them know that a vast and growing transpartisan alliance of health & food freedom advocates, framers, ranchers, gardeners, tea partiers and others have sent millions of messages to Congress: SENATOR: VOTE “NO!” ON S.510!
We do not support any version of the fake “food safety” bill and will work to defund any bill that is adopted and signed into law! We will not forget how each Senator votes on this critical issue!
Action Item (to contact your Senators; please do so at least daily for each member of your household!) – http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/o/568/p/dia/action/public/?action_KEY=4613
Join us to listen and chat about this on Dr. Rima Reports – www.HealthFreedomPortal.org [Every Sunday morning, 9 to noon Central - Oracle Broadcasting].
PS - someone emailed us, "Why are you putting a dollar sign in front of the fake "food safety" bill number?" Answer: because even its proponents admit they'll need to spend nearly One Billion Dollars in the first year to implement this new control scheme... and they never over-estimate! With 4,000 new FDA "inspectors" a whole new army of Federal controllers will be unleashed on our local, natural food production and distribution. The cost will grow and grow... as govt grows to meet the needs of a growing govt! Sphere: Related Content
Wednesday, November 24, 2010
West Virginia sues Monsanto over soybean probe
(sent to me by Patty S. in Alberta - thanks!)
West Virginia sues Monsanto over soybean probe
Posted on November 22, 2010
by April
Leave a comment
St. Louis Business Journal, USA, Kelsey Volkmann
West Virginia’s attorney general sued Monsanto on Monday, saying the agritech giant refuses to cooperate with his office’s investigation of soybeans genetically modified to withstand the company’s Roundup weedkiller.
Attorney General Darrell McGraw’s suit asks the court to prohibit Monsanto from selling any of its products in West Virginia until it fully complies with the subpoena.
McGraw said he launched a probe into Monsanto and its advertising when several published tests showed the results touted by Monsanto may not support its advertising for a second-generation soybean seed called Roundup Ready 2 Yield, which are $5 more per acre than the first-generation seeds. Patents on the first generation seeds expire in 2014. To promote its second generation of genetically modified soybeans, Monsanto advertised that the Roundup Ready 2 Yield plants have an increased yield of 7 percent to 11 percent over similar varieties of the first-generation plants, McGraw said.
“I want to ensure there is a fair marketplace for West Virginia farmers,” McGraw said in statement. “They need to know if it is worth extra money to buy new products that may not live up to the hype.”
Creve Coeur-based Monsanto, which is led by Chairman and Chief Executive Hugh Grant, said the attorney general’s office won’t agree to a protective order related to the confidential intellectual property information.
“Such a protective order is a customary practice when intellectual property is involved,” spokeswoman Kelli Powers said in an e-mailed statement. “We also believe a protective order is appropriate in this instance as many of the attorney general’s questions parallel allegations made by DuPont-Pioneer Hi Bred in the St. Louis federal court litigation. In that case, the Federal Court has entered a protective order.”
Powers said Monsanto stands by its data, saying they were collected across more than 40,000 comparisons from 2007 to 2009.
In 2009, two West Virginia farmers planted Roundup Ready 2 Yield soybeans, Powers said. Monsanto does not have test plot data specifically from West Virginia due to the limited production of soybeans in the state, she said.
“Agriculture is our only business at Monsanto, and we are committed to the success of farmers,” she said. “That’s why we introduce new products only after we have thoroughly tested them and have the full confidence — backed by data — that they will deliver on farm.”
Link to article on St. Louis Business Journal
Sphere: Related Content
Saturday, November 6, 2010
Pesticide Maker Pays Farmers to Use Competitors' Pesticides - More on Monsanto
This article was forwarded to me by Cindy over at Sassy Condiments....
RODALE NEWS, EMMAUS, PA—Talk about irony. Monsanto, the huge corporation that pushed farmers to plant its genetically modified (GMO) seeds—which need to be used in conjunction with the company's Roundup pesticide—is now "incentivizing" farmers to use its competitors' chemical weed killers. You see, Roundup isn't working anymore. In just a few years, weeds have developed a resistance to the pesticide, causing an explosion of hard-to-kill superweeds that have put millions of acres of U.S. farmland out of commission. So to keep farmers dependent on its expensive chemical system, Monsanto is now paying up to $20 an acre to farmers planting Roundup Ready GMO crops, so long as they spray other harmful chemicals on the land to reduce weeds, since Roundup isn't doing the trick anymore. The corporation that trapped farmers into using all of its products, from seed to weed management, is asking farmers to use other companies' products—and paying them per acre to do so.
"It says 'desperation.' What we're seeing is the collapse of the whole system of weed management that was build around herbicide sales," says Marcia Ishii-Eiteman, PhD, senior scientist at Pesticide Action Network of North America. "Ecologists predicted back in the '90s that as soon as you start pouring on and designing seeds for use of one pesticide, there will be an emergence of superweeds. Bingo, that's what we have now."
THE DETAILS: Monsanto created and patented genetically modified, herbicide-resistant crops, and although this system is more expensive, sold it to farmers on a promise of eradicating weeds with little work and less pesticide spraying. In India, where Monsanto also pushed this GMO/chemical technology, farmers facing insurmountable debt after switching to chemical farming are killing themselves at unprecedented rates. More than 200,000 have committed suicide since Montanto infiltrated the cotton farming system there.
Farmers in the U.S. aren't taking their lives on the same scale, but their way of life is seriously threatened, thanks to Monsanto's antics. More than 5 million acres of farmland are now infested with Roundup-resistant superweeds. Some monster weeds (such as pigweed) develop stalks several inches in diameter and have actually wrecked farmers' equipment. This is opening the doors for other biotech companies like Dow to push other crops through the approval pipeline, including ones designed to be used with chemical 2,4-D, one of two highly toxic herbicides used in Agent Orange. Meanwhile, many farmers are turning to older, toxic pesticides to deal with the superweeds.
"The U.S. farmer is in a crisis that was pretty much created by Monsanto. It's ironic—they're now paying for the competition's herbicides just to deal with the resistance that they, in effect, created," says Ishii-Eiteman, who authored a 2008 United Nations report investigating corporate-driven agriculture funded by pesticides and GMO crops. While 58 of the 61 nations approved the report, which in essence found business as usual is not an option, the United States, Canada, and Australia did not sign on because the report sharply criticized the GMO/biotech sector.
But things may be changing. Several state attorneys general, along with the U.S. Department of Justice, are looking at the company's practices, including possible antitrust violations. "The system worked for a few years in terms of profit for a company, but it's not working for farmers or the environment," explains Ishii-Eiteman.
WHAT IT MEANS: First off, it's important to note that Roundup is not a safe chemical, although Monsanto brainwashes farmers into believing it is. Only recently have researchers started looking at the whole product, including both its active and its inert ingredients. New research from an international team of Argentine, Brazilian, and U.S. scientists found that glyphosate, the active ingredient in Roundup, produces a toxic effect on frogs, and possibly on the human reproductive system. Roundup has also been shown to cause birth defects in mice. Even worse, the chemicals in the pesticide actually wind up in food, carried inside plants by the surfactants in the Roundup formula. Like many other pesticides, it destroys beneficial soil organisms, including earthworms, that keep soil healthy, nutrient-rich, and resistant to erosion.
"The more you pour this stuff on, the more you destroy the health of your soil, and you fall deeper and deeper into a chemical-based system full of pesticides and fertilizers," says Ishii-Eiteman. Poorer soil motivates farmers to spend more on synthetic chemicals, which do more damage to the soil and…you get the picture. "It speeds you on a chemical treadmill until the system collapses, which is what we're seeing on many farms across the U.S. They're burning the soil by using more chemical pesticides and fertilizers."
Here's how to stop corporations from wrecking our country's farm heritage:
• Choose organic every time. There's a hot debate around organic versus local. But if you want to keep your family safe from harmful chemicals and promote a system of farming that's not fostering the spread of superweeds, choose organic. The more you vote with your pocketbook, the more other farmers may consider going organic. Organic farmers are largely protected from the problems chemical farmers face because they keep weed seed banks stored in the soil low by planting green manure and cover crops, rotating crops, and building soil fertility that boosts the numbers of beneficial critters underground. (Of course, you don't always have to make a choice. Buy organic AND local whenever you can.)
• Write a letter to the Justice Department. Send a letter to the Department of Justice spelling out how farming affects you. You can raise issues like why aren't GMO ingredients required to be labeled on food, protecting consumers, and your concerns about farming chemicals and how they affect human and environmental health.
If you want to be heard in person, speak up at a Department of Justice workshop, open to farmers and consumers, in Washington, DC, on Dec. 8.
• Read and share. Maria Rodale, CEO of Rodale and a longtime advocate for organic farming, lays out a strong case for protecting your family by supporting organic in her book Organic Manifesto (Rodale, 2010). Even stubborn family members will appreciate the read, and maybe even be inspired to buy an organic apple afterward! Sphere: Related Content
RODALE NEWS, EMMAUS, PA—Talk about irony. Monsanto, the huge corporation that pushed farmers to plant its genetically modified (GMO) seeds—which need to be used in conjunction with the company's Roundup pesticide—is now "incentivizing" farmers to use its competitors' chemical weed killers. You see, Roundup isn't working anymore. In just a few years, weeds have developed a resistance to the pesticide, causing an explosion of hard-to-kill superweeds that have put millions of acres of U.S. farmland out of commission. So to keep farmers dependent on its expensive chemical system, Monsanto is now paying up to $20 an acre to farmers planting Roundup Ready GMO crops, so long as they spray other harmful chemicals on the land to reduce weeds, since Roundup isn't doing the trick anymore. The corporation that trapped farmers into using all of its products, from seed to weed management, is asking farmers to use other companies' products—and paying them per acre to do so.
"It says 'desperation.' What we're seeing is the collapse of the whole system of weed management that was build around herbicide sales," says Marcia Ishii-Eiteman, PhD, senior scientist at Pesticide Action Network of North America. "Ecologists predicted back in the '90s that as soon as you start pouring on and designing seeds for use of one pesticide, there will be an emergence of superweeds. Bingo, that's what we have now."
THE DETAILS: Monsanto created and patented genetically modified, herbicide-resistant crops, and although this system is more expensive, sold it to farmers on a promise of eradicating weeds with little work and less pesticide spraying. In India, where Monsanto also pushed this GMO/chemical technology, farmers facing insurmountable debt after switching to chemical farming are killing themselves at unprecedented rates. More than 200,000 have committed suicide since Montanto infiltrated the cotton farming system there.
Farmers in the U.S. aren't taking their lives on the same scale, but their way of life is seriously threatened, thanks to Monsanto's antics. More than 5 million acres of farmland are now infested with Roundup-resistant superweeds. Some monster weeds (such as pigweed) develop stalks several inches in diameter and have actually wrecked farmers' equipment. This is opening the doors for other biotech companies like Dow to push other crops through the approval pipeline, including ones designed to be used with chemical 2,4-D, one of two highly toxic herbicides used in Agent Orange. Meanwhile, many farmers are turning to older, toxic pesticides to deal with the superweeds.
"The U.S. farmer is in a crisis that was pretty much created by Monsanto. It's ironic—they're now paying for the competition's herbicides just to deal with the resistance that they, in effect, created," says Ishii-Eiteman, who authored a 2008 United Nations report investigating corporate-driven agriculture funded by pesticides and GMO crops. While 58 of the 61 nations approved the report, which in essence found business as usual is not an option, the United States, Canada, and Australia did not sign on because the report sharply criticized the GMO/biotech sector.
But things may be changing. Several state attorneys general, along with the U.S. Department of Justice, are looking at the company's practices, including possible antitrust violations. "The system worked for a few years in terms of profit for a company, but it's not working for farmers or the environment," explains Ishii-Eiteman.
WHAT IT MEANS: First off, it's important to note that Roundup is not a safe chemical, although Monsanto brainwashes farmers into believing it is. Only recently have researchers started looking at the whole product, including both its active and its inert ingredients. New research from an international team of Argentine, Brazilian, and U.S. scientists found that glyphosate, the active ingredient in Roundup, produces a toxic effect on frogs, and possibly on the human reproductive system. Roundup has also been shown to cause birth defects in mice. Even worse, the chemicals in the pesticide actually wind up in food, carried inside plants by the surfactants in the Roundup formula. Like many other pesticides, it destroys beneficial soil organisms, including earthworms, that keep soil healthy, nutrient-rich, and resistant to erosion.
"The more you pour this stuff on, the more you destroy the health of your soil, and you fall deeper and deeper into a chemical-based system full of pesticides and fertilizers," says Ishii-Eiteman. Poorer soil motivates farmers to spend more on synthetic chemicals, which do more damage to the soil and…you get the picture. "It speeds you on a chemical treadmill until the system collapses, which is what we're seeing on many farms across the U.S. They're burning the soil by using more chemical pesticides and fertilizers."
Here's how to stop corporations from wrecking our country's farm heritage:
• Choose organic every time. There's a hot debate around organic versus local. But if you want to keep your family safe from harmful chemicals and promote a system of farming that's not fostering the spread of superweeds, choose organic. The more you vote with your pocketbook, the more other farmers may consider going organic. Organic farmers are largely protected from the problems chemical farmers face because they keep weed seed banks stored in the soil low by planting green manure and cover crops, rotating crops, and building soil fertility that boosts the numbers of beneficial critters underground. (Of course, you don't always have to make a choice. Buy organic AND local whenever you can.)
• Write a letter to the Justice Department. Send a letter to the Department of Justice spelling out how farming affects you. You can raise issues like why aren't GMO ingredients required to be labeled on food, protecting consumers, and your concerns about farming chemicals and how they affect human and environmental health.
If you want to be heard in person, speak up at a Department of Justice workshop, open to farmers and consumers, in Washington, DC, on Dec. 8.
• Read and share. Maria Rodale, CEO of Rodale and a longtime advocate for organic farming, lays out a strong case for protecting your family by supporting organic in her book Organic Manifesto (Rodale, 2010). Even stubborn family members will appreciate the read, and maybe even be inspired to buy an organic apple afterward! Sphere: Related Content
Saturday, October 30, 2010
More on Monsanto
(For those of us who have taken a huge dislike of Monsanto, read this)
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2010/10/23/monsanto-finally-reaping-its-just-desserts.aspx?aid=CD945
Monsanto, the giant biotechnology agriculture company that created genetically modified corn, soybeans and herbicides, isn't riding so high this year in the stocks department, as news comes in that its products aren't working like they'd hoped.
According to the New York Times, weeds are becoming immune to Monsanto's herbicide Roundup, and its latest genetically modified, 8-gene corn is a flop, producing yields no higher than the company's less expensive corn, which contains only three foreign genes.
"Monsanto has already been forced to sharply cut prices on SmartStax and on its newest soybean seeds, called Roundup Ready 2 Yield, as sales fell below projections," the Times said. "And the Justice Department is investigating Monsanto for possible antitrust violations."
"Until now, Monsanto's main challenge has come from opponents of genetically modified crops, who have slowed their adoption in Europe and some other regions. Now, however, the skeptics also include farmers and investors who were once in Monsanto's camp."
Monsanto was named "company of the year" by Forbes Magazine in December. Last week, television stock market commentator Jim Cramer said it "may be the worst stock of 2010," the Times said.
Sources:
New York Times October 5, 2010
Since the 1980s, Monsanto has become the world leader in genetic modification of seeds, succeeding in at least 674 biotechnology patents, more than any other company -- and they showed no signs of stopping … until now.
It seems Monsanto's glory days may be coming to an end, which is a refreshing turnaround from last December, when Forbes declared this evil corporation "company of the year" -- for reasons that truly boggle the mind.
Now, the tide is turning, and as the Times pointed out, signs are suggesting that Monsanto's "winning streak" is over:
•Monsanto's newest genetically modified (GM) product, SmartStax corn, provides no greater yields than older products, despite being more expensive
•Weeds are growing resistant to Monsanto's Roundup
•The Justice Department is investigating Monsanto for possible antitrust violations
Already, shares of Monsanto's stock have fallen 42 percent since January, and earnings for the fiscal year are expected to be well under projections.
To say this news makes me overjoyed is an understatement, as this company represents one of the biggest threats to your future health, and that of the planet.
Monsanto Monstrosities Swept Under the Rug
Why is Monsanto top on my hit list of evil corporations? Here is just a short list of the many improprieties and outright crimes committed by Monsanto:
•Suing small farmers for patent infringement after Monsanto's GM seeds spread wildly into surrounding farmers' fields, contaminating their conventional crops
•Secretly discharging PCB-laden toxic waste into an Alabama creek, and dumping millions of pounds of PCBs into open-pit landfills for decades after PCBs were banned in the US for being a possible carcinogen.
•Being found guilty of bribery to bypass Indonesian law requiring an environmental assessment review for its genetically engineered cotton.
•Last year, the supreme court of France found Monsanto guilty of falsely advertising its herbicide Roundup as "biodegradable" and "environmentally friendly." Scientific evaluation discovered that glyphosate, the active ingredient in RoundUp, is acutely toxic to fish and birds and can kill beneficial insects and soil organisms that maintain ecological balance. Additionally, the surfactant ingredient in Roundup is more acutely toxic than glyphosate itself, and the combination of the two is even more toxic.
•In 2007, the South African Advertising Standards Authority also found Monsanto guilty of lying when advertising that "no negative reactions to Genetically Modified food have been reported."
•According to one EPA scientist, Monsanto doctored studies and covered-up dioxin contamination of a wide range of its products. She concluded that the company's behaviour constituted "a long pattern of fraud."
•In 1999, the New York Times exposed that Monsanto's PR firm, Burson Marsteller, had paid fake "pro-GMO" food demonstrators to counteract a group of anti-biotech protesters outside a Washington, DC FDA meeting.
This should give you a clue as to why I'm thrilled that Monsanto appears to be falling out of favor, at least in the stock market realm.
Be Warned: Monsanto Has People on the Inside
Despite their falling stock prices, I don't expect Monsanto to disappear from the radar. They will continue to produce as many genetically modified crops and chemicals as the world population will accept.
And they've got help at every turn, including from leaders in the U.S. government. Michael Taylor, a former vice president of public policy and chief lobbyist at Monsanto Company, is the deputy commissioner for foods at the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA).
Who is Michael Taylor? He is the person who "oversaw the creation of GMO policy," according to Jeffrey Smith, the leading spokesperson on the dangers of GM foods. Smith continues:
"If GMOs are indeed responsible for massive sickness and death, then the individual who oversaw the FDA policy that facilitated their introduction holds a uniquely infamous role in human history. That person is Michael Taylor. He had been Monsanto's attorney before becoming policy chief at the FDA. Soon after, he became Monsanto's vice president and chief lobbyist."
The FDA policy being referred to is the 1992 GMO policy, which stated:
"The agency is not aware of any information showing that foods derived by these new methods [genetic engineering] differ from other foods in any meaningful or uniform way."
In reality, there was major concern among FDA scientists that GM foods were in fact different than natural foods, and that their creation could prompt unknown and unpredictable health problems.
Former Iowa Governor Tom Vilsack, now the Secretary of Agriculture, is also widely regarded as a shill for biotech giants like Monsanto (he even reportedly often travels in Monsanto's jet). There are other less noticeable connections too, such as Sharon Long, a former member of Monsanto's board of directors who was part of Obama's scientific advisory team during the election/campaign.
Let's Really Give Monsanto the Boot
This could be the beginning of the end for Monsanto … if we can continue to drive the momentum that's forming against the creation and proliferation of genetically modified organisms (GMOs).
The first step you have already done, and that is to get informed. You can continue to spread the word further by sharing this article with your friends and family.
Next, hit Monsanto where it counts ... their bottom line. By boycotting all GM foods and instead supporting organic (and local) farmers who do not use Monsanto's GM seeds, you are using your wallet to make your opinions known.
Most people want to avoid GMOs but it is virtually impossible to do so, since the government prevents GMO labeling.
However, Jeffery Smith has compiled a resource for you to avoid the government block of information. It is the free Non-GMO Shopping Guide. We realize that with the challenging economy it is very difficult for many to donate money to help this cause, so we are merely asking for your time and connections with your family and friends.
You can really help by making this message go viral. So if you are convinced that GMO foods should not be in the US, please send this information to everyone you know; post it on Facebook and Twitter…
You can also print out the Non-GMO Shopping Guide and give it to your friends and family.
If you feel more ambitious you can also order the Non-GMO Shopping Tips brochure in bulk, and bring them to the grocery stores in your area. Talk to the owner or manager and get permission to post them in their store.
October is Non-GMO Month! Here's How to Get Involved …
There are a number of different ways for you to get actively involved during Non-GMO (genetically modified organisms) Month … which may as well be called Non-Monsanto Month, too, given that they're the leader in the GMO industry. Here is a list of Action Item for you to pick and choose from:
1.Distribute WIDELY the Non-GMO Shopping Guide to help you identify and avoid foods with GMOs. Remember to look for products (including organic products) that feature the Non-GMO Project Verified Seal to be sure that at-risk ingredients have been tested for GMO content.
2.Download the Non-GMO Shopping Tips brochure and keep it with you whenever you shop, or download the free iPhone application that is available in the iTunes store. You can find it by searching for ShopNoGMO in the applications.
You can also order the Non-GMO Shopping Tips brochure in bulk and give it to your family and friends.
3.Urge food manufacturers to join the Non-GMO Project and become Non-GMO Project Verified. This is currently the only way for manufacturers to get around the fact that there's no GM-labeling system.
4.Urge your local food retailers to join the Non-GMO Project's Supporting Retailer Program.
5.If your budget allows support this urgent mission by generously donating to the Institute of Responsible Technology.
6.Bring the film Hidden Dangers in Kid's Meals to your local access TV station, or perhaps your child's school, along with some educational material specifically designed for teachers and educators.
7.Share Your Milk on Drugs - Just Say No!, and Jeffrey's lecture, Everything You Have to Know About Dangerous Genetically Modified Foods with everyone you know. Post them to your Facebook page, or email the links to your network of friends and family.
8.Join the Non-GMO Project on Facebook, or follow them on Twitter.
Together, We Control the Future of Our Food
Please join us in this important campaign. Do as much or as little as you can. Maybe you can't make a donation to IRT, but you can distribute 20 Non-GMO shopping guides to your closest family and friends.
Plus, all orders placed through Mercola.com, starting October 6th, will receive a FREE, printed 16-page Non-GMO Shopping Guide.*
No purchase necessary. You may also download the Non-GMO Shopping Guide, for free, here.
Please, support this urgent mission by donating to the Institute of Responsible Technology, a non-profit organization.
Together, we can make a difference. Together, we can reach the tipping point and push GMOs out of our food supply.
Related Links:
Why are Monsanto Insiders Now Appointed to Protect Your Food Safety?
France Finds Monsanto Guilty of Lying
Monsanto's Many Attempts to Destroy All Seeds but Their Own
Sphere: Related Content
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2010/10/23/monsanto-finally-reaping-its-just-desserts.aspx?aid=CD945
Monsanto, the giant biotechnology agriculture company that created genetically modified corn, soybeans and herbicides, isn't riding so high this year in the stocks department, as news comes in that its products aren't working like they'd hoped.
According to the New York Times, weeds are becoming immune to Monsanto's herbicide Roundup, and its latest genetically modified, 8-gene corn is a flop, producing yields no higher than the company's less expensive corn, which contains only three foreign genes.
"Monsanto has already been forced to sharply cut prices on SmartStax and on its newest soybean seeds, called Roundup Ready 2 Yield, as sales fell below projections," the Times said. "And the Justice Department is investigating Monsanto for possible antitrust violations."
"Until now, Monsanto's main challenge has come from opponents of genetically modified crops, who have slowed their adoption in Europe and some other regions. Now, however, the skeptics also include farmers and investors who were once in Monsanto's camp."
Monsanto was named "company of the year" by Forbes Magazine in December. Last week, television stock market commentator Jim Cramer said it "may be the worst stock of 2010," the Times said.
Sources:
New York Times October 5, 2010
Dr. Mercola's Comments:
Since the 1980s, Monsanto has become the world leader in genetic modification of seeds, succeeding in at least 674 biotechnology patents, more than any other company -- and they showed no signs of stopping … until now.
It seems Monsanto's glory days may be coming to an end, which is a refreshing turnaround from last December, when Forbes declared this evil corporation "company of the year" -- for reasons that truly boggle the mind.
Now, the tide is turning, and as the Times pointed out, signs are suggesting that Monsanto's "winning streak" is over:
•Monsanto's newest genetically modified (GM) product, SmartStax corn, provides no greater yields than older products, despite being more expensive
•Weeds are growing resistant to Monsanto's Roundup
•The Justice Department is investigating Monsanto for possible antitrust violations
Already, shares of Monsanto's stock have fallen 42 percent since January, and earnings for the fiscal year are expected to be well under projections.
To say this news makes me overjoyed is an understatement, as this company represents one of the biggest threats to your future health, and that of the planet.
Monsanto Monstrosities Swept Under the Rug
Why is Monsanto top on my hit list of evil corporations? Here is just a short list of the many improprieties and outright crimes committed by Monsanto:
•Suing small farmers for patent infringement after Monsanto's GM seeds spread wildly into surrounding farmers' fields, contaminating their conventional crops
•Secretly discharging PCB-laden toxic waste into an Alabama creek, and dumping millions of pounds of PCBs into open-pit landfills for decades after PCBs were banned in the US for being a possible carcinogen.
•Being found guilty of bribery to bypass Indonesian law requiring an environmental assessment review for its genetically engineered cotton.
•Last year, the supreme court of France found Monsanto guilty of falsely advertising its herbicide Roundup as "biodegradable" and "environmentally friendly." Scientific evaluation discovered that glyphosate, the active ingredient in RoundUp, is acutely toxic to fish and birds and can kill beneficial insects and soil organisms that maintain ecological balance. Additionally, the surfactant ingredient in Roundup is more acutely toxic than glyphosate itself, and the combination of the two is even more toxic.
•In 2007, the South African Advertising Standards Authority also found Monsanto guilty of lying when advertising that "no negative reactions to Genetically Modified food have been reported."
•According to one EPA scientist, Monsanto doctored studies and covered-up dioxin contamination of a wide range of its products. She concluded that the company's behaviour constituted "a long pattern of fraud."
•In 1999, the New York Times exposed that Monsanto's PR firm, Burson Marsteller, had paid fake "pro-GMO" food demonstrators to counteract a group of anti-biotech protesters outside a Washington, DC FDA meeting.
This should give you a clue as to why I'm thrilled that Monsanto appears to be falling out of favor, at least in the stock market realm.
Be Warned: Monsanto Has People on the Inside
Despite their falling stock prices, I don't expect Monsanto to disappear from the radar. They will continue to produce as many genetically modified crops and chemicals as the world population will accept.
And they've got help at every turn, including from leaders in the U.S. government. Michael Taylor, a former vice president of public policy and chief lobbyist at Monsanto Company, is the deputy commissioner for foods at the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA).
Who is Michael Taylor? He is the person who "oversaw the creation of GMO policy," according to Jeffrey Smith, the leading spokesperson on the dangers of GM foods. Smith continues:
"If GMOs are indeed responsible for massive sickness and death, then the individual who oversaw the FDA policy that facilitated their introduction holds a uniquely infamous role in human history. That person is Michael Taylor. He had been Monsanto's attorney before becoming policy chief at the FDA. Soon after, he became Monsanto's vice president and chief lobbyist."
The FDA policy being referred to is the 1992 GMO policy, which stated:
"The agency is not aware of any information showing that foods derived by these new methods [genetic engineering] differ from other foods in any meaningful or uniform way."
In reality, there was major concern among FDA scientists that GM foods were in fact different than natural foods, and that their creation could prompt unknown and unpredictable health problems.
Former Iowa Governor Tom Vilsack, now the Secretary of Agriculture, is also widely regarded as a shill for biotech giants like Monsanto (he even reportedly often travels in Monsanto's jet). There are other less noticeable connections too, such as Sharon Long, a former member of Monsanto's board of directors who was part of Obama's scientific advisory team during the election/campaign.
Let's Really Give Monsanto the Boot
This could be the beginning of the end for Monsanto … if we can continue to drive the momentum that's forming against the creation and proliferation of genetically modified organisms (GMOs).
The first step you have already done, and that is to get informed. You can continue to spread the word further by sharing this article with your friends and family.
Next, hit Monsanto where it counts ... their bottom line. By boycotting all GM foods and instead supporting organic (and local) farmers who do not use Monsanto's GM seeds, you are using your wallet to make your opinions known.
Most people want to avoid GMOs but it is virtually impossible to do so, since the government prevents GMO labeling.
However, Jeffery Smith has compiled a resource for you to avoid the government block of information. It is the free Non-GMO Shopping Guide. We realize that with the challenging economy it is very difficult for many to donate money to help this cause, so we are merely asking for your time and connections with your family and friends.
You can really help by making this message go viral. So if you are convinced that GMO foods should not be in the US, please send this information to everyone you know; post it on Facebook and Twitter…
You can also print out the Non-GMO Shopping Guide and give it to your friends and family.
If you feel more ambitious you can also order the Non-GMO Shopping Tips brochure in bulk, and bring them to the grocery stores in your area. Talk to the owner or manager and get permission to post them in their store.
October is Non-GMO Month! Here's How to Get Involved …
There are a number of different ways for you to get actively involved during Non-GMO (genetically modified organisms) Month … which may as well be called Non-Monsanto Month, too, given that they're the leader in the GMO industry. Here is a list of Action Item for you to pick and choose from:
1.Distribute WIDELY the Non-GMO Shopping Guide to help you identify and avoid foods with GMOs. Remember to look for products (including organic products) that feature the Non-GMO Project Verified Seal to be sure that at-risk ingredients have been tested for GMO content.
2.Download the Non-GMO Shopping Tips brochure and keep it with you whenever you shop, or download the free iPhone application that is available in the iTunes store. You can find it by searching for ShopNoGMO in the applications.
You can also order the Non-GMO Shopping Tips brochure in bulk and give it to your family and friends.
3.Urge food manufacturers to join the Non-GMO Project and become Non-GMO Project Verified. This is currently the only way for manufacturers to get around the fact that there's no GM-labeling system.
4.Urge your local food retailers to join the Non-GMO Project's Supporting Retailer Program.
5.If your budget allows support this urgent mission by generously donating to the Institute of Responsible Technology.
6.Bring the film Hidden Dangers in Kid's Meals to your local access TV station, or perhaps your child's school, along with some educational material specifically designed for teachers and educators.
7.Share Your Milk on Drugs - Just Say No!, and Jeffrey's lecture, Everything You Have to Know About Dangerous Genetically Modified Foods with everyone you know. Post them to your Facebook page, or email the links to your network of friends and family.
8.Join the Non-GMO Project on Facebook, or follow them on Twitter.
Together, We Control the Future of Our Food
Please join us in this important campaign. Do as much or as little as you can. Maybe you can't make a donation to IRT, but you can distribute 20 Non-GMO shopping guides to your closest family and friends.
Plus, all orders placed through Mercola.com, starting October 6th, will receive a FREE, printed 16-page Non-GMO Shopping Guide.*
No purchase necessary. You may also download the Non-GMO Shopping Guide, for free, here.
Please, support this urgent mission by donating to the Institute of Responsible Technology, a non-profit organization.
Together, we can make a difference. Together, we can reach the tipping point and push GMOs out of our food supply.
Related Links:
Why are Monsanto Insiders Now Appointed to Protect Your Food Safety?
France Finds Monsanto Guilty of Lying
Monsanto's Many Attempts to Destroy All Seeds but Their Own
Sphere: Related Content
Thursday, September 9, 2010
U.S. Judge Bans Planting of Genetically Engineered Beets - Monsanto
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38700003/ns/technology_and_science-science
This is from August 13, 2010....a step in the right direction!
By Dan Levine
updated 8/13/2010 11:54:17 PM ET
SAN FRANCISCO — A federal judge on Friday banned the planting of genetically modified sugar beets engineered by Monsanto Co in a ruling that marks a major setback for the biotech giant.
U.S. District Judge Jeffrey White ruled in 2009 that the U.S. Department of Agriculture had approved Monsanto's genetically modified sugar beets without adequate environmental study.
Sugar beets account for over half of the nation's sugar supply. But conventional sugar beet seeds remain widely available and environmentalists filing suit said the judge's decision should not significantly affect sugar production.
White's decision on Friday to impose the ban did not apply to crops already planted or harvested. It stems from a lawsuit brought by environmentalists over Monsanto sugar beets engineered to be resistant to the weed-killer Roundup.
Roundup is also manufactured by Monsanto and was sold to farmers together with the genetically altered sugar beet seeds.
"It's a victory for farmers, for the environment and for the public," said George Kimbrell, a senior staff attorney for the Center for Food Safety, plaintiffs in the case.
Environmentalists have argued that the "Roundup Ready" crops have increased the use of herbicides and herbicide- resistant weeds.
Monsanto has claimed in court papers that revoking the government's approval of its genetically modified seed could cost the company and its customers some $2 billion in 2011 and 2012.
Agriculture Department spokesperson Caleb Weaver said the USDA was reviewing the judge's order "to determine appropriate next steps."
FULL IMPLICATIONS UNKNOWN
A Monsanto representative referred reporters to Duane Grant, an Idaho sugar beet farmer and chairman of the Snake River Sugar cooperative.
"Before planting next spring's 2011 crop, clearly we are going to have to understand all of the implications of the judge's ruling, and what might be open to us," Grant said.
He said that since White's decision did not apply to sugar beets already planted or harvested, "really there is no immediate impact on sugar availability or cost to the consumer."
Sugar beets make up a little over half of the U.S. sugar crop, and 95 percent of sugar beets come from Roundup ready seed, Grant said.
The Center for Food Safety has countered that farmers can easily go back to using conventional sugar beet seeds, which were widely used as recently as two years ago.
Most U.S. sugar beets are planted in March, April and May, he said.
The government has valued the sugar beet crop, which is largely grown in 11 states, the bulk of them in the Midwest, at $1.335 billion for 2007-2008.
In June, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld a separate federal judge's ruling revoking the USDA's approval of Monsanto's genetically modified alfalfa until a full environmental review was completed.
________________________________________
What are your thoughts? Leave a comment!
Sphere: Related Content
This is from August 13, 2010....a step in the right direction!
By Dan Levine
updated 8/13/2010 11:54:17 PM ET
SAN FRANCISCO — A federal judge on Friday banned the planting of genetically modified sugar beets engineered by Monsanto Co in a ruling that marks a major setback for the biotech giant.
U.S. District Judge Jeffrey White ruled in 2009 that the U.S. Department of Agriculture had approved Monsanto's genetically modified sugar beets without adequate environmental study.
Sugar beets account for over half of the nation's sugar supply. But conventional sugar beet seeds remain widely available and environmentalists filing suit said the judge's decision should not significantly affect sugar production.
White's decision on Friday to impose the ban did not apply to crops already planted or harvested. It stems from a lawsuit brought by environmentalists over Monsanto sugar beets engineered to be resistant to the weed-killer Roundup.
Roundup is also manufactured by Monsanto and was sold to farmers together with the genetically altered sugar beet seeds.
"It's a victory for farmers, for the environment and for the public," said George Kimbrell, a senior staff attorney for the Center for Food Safety, plaintiffs in the case.
Environmentalists have argued that the "Roundup Ready" crops have increased the use of herbicides and herbicide- resistant weeds.
Monsanto has claimed in court papers that revoking the government's approval of its genetically modified seed could cost the company and its customers some $2 billion in 2011 and 2012.
Agriculture Department spokesperson Caleb Weaver said the USDA was reviewing the judge's order "to determine appropriate next steps."
FULL IMPLICATIONS UNKNOWN
A Monsanto representative referred reporters to Duane Grant, an Idaho sugar beet farmer and chairman of the Snake River Sugar cooperative.
"Before planting next spring's 2011 crop, clearly we are going to have to understand all of the implications of the judge's ruling, and what might be open to us," Grant said.
He said that since White's decision did not apply to sugar beets already planted or harvested, "really there is no immediate impact on sugar availability or cost to the consumer."
Sugar beets make up a little over half of the U.S. sugar crop, and 95 percent of sugar beets come from Roundup ready seed, Grant said.
The Center for Food Safety has countered that farmers can easily go back to using conventional sugar beet seeds, which were widely used as recently as two years ago.
Most U.S. sugar beets are planted in March, April and May, he said.
The government has valued the sugar beet crop, which is largely grown in 11 states, the bulk of them in the Midwest, at $1.335 billion for 2007-2008.
In June, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld a separate federal judge's ruling revoking the USDA's approval of Monsanto's genetically modified alfalfa until a full environmental review was completed.
________________________________________
What are your thoughts? Leave a comment!
Sphere: Related Content
Wednesday, June 23, 2010
Monsanto Wins Supreme Court Case: Genetically Modified Alfalfa Ban Lifted
Linda over at Lindercroft posted this today on her blog....it's worthy of posting over here too, as I have been following the company Monsanto for awhile now.
Originally found at Huffington, here's a link to the article.
WASHINGTON (AP)-- The Supreme Court on Monday lifted a nationwide ban on the planting of genetically engineered alfalfa seeds, despite claims they might harm the environment.
In a 7-1 vote Monday, the court reversed a federal appeals court ruling that had prohibited Monsanto Co. from selling alfalfa seeds because they are resistant to the popular weed killer Roundup.
The U.S. Agriculture Department must now decide whether to allow the genetically-modified seeds to be planted. It had earlier approved the seeds, but courts in California and Oregon said the USDA did not look hard enough at whether the seeds would eventually share their genes with other crops.
"This Supreme Court ruling is important for every American farmer, not just alfalfa growers," said David F. Snively, Monsanto's senior vice president and general counsel. "All growers can rely on the expertise of USDA, and trust that future challenges to biotech approvals must now be based on scientific facts, not speculation."
A federal judge in San Francisco had barred the planting of genetically engineered alfalfa nationwide until the government could adequately study the crop's potential impact on organic and conventional varieties.
St. Louis-based Monsanto argued that the ban was too broad and was based on the assumption that their products were harmful. Opponents of the use of genetically engineered seeds say they can contaminate conventional crops, but Monsanto says such cross-pollination is unlikely.
"We agree that the District Court's injunction against planting went too far," said Justice Samuel Alito, who wrote the majority opinion.
Justice John Paul Stevens was the only justice to dissent. "It was reasonable for the court to conclude that planting could not go forward until more complete study ... showed that the known problem of gene flow could in reality be prevented," he said.
Alfalfa, which is used for livestock feed and can be planted in spring or fall, is a major crop grown on about 22 million acres in the U.S., Monsanto said in court papers. Monsanto's alfalfa is made from genetic material from bacteria that makes the crop resistant to Roundup.
Justice Stephen Breyer took no part in the case because his brother, U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer in San Francisco, issued the initial ruling against Monsanto.
The case is Monsanto v. Geerston Seed Farms, 09-475. Sphere: Related Content
Originally found at Huffington, here's a link to the article.
WASHINGTON (AP)-- The Supreme Court on Monday lifted a nationwide ban on the planting of genetically engineered alfalfa seeds, despite claims they might harm the environment.
In a 7-1 vote Monday, the court reversed a federal appeals court ruling that had prohibited Monsanto Co. from selling alfalfa seeds because they are resistant to the popular weed killer Roundup.
The U.S. Agriculture Department must now decide whether to allow the genetically-modified seeds to be planted. It had earlier approved the seeds, but courts in California and Oregon said the USDA did not look hard enough at whether the seeds would eventually share their genes with other crops.
"This Supreme Court ruling is important for every American farmer, not just alfalfa growers," said David F. Snively, Monsanto's senior vice president and general counsel. "All growers can rely on the expertise of USDA, and trust that future challenges to biotech approvals must now be based on scientific facts, not speculation."
A federal judge in San Francisco had barred the planting of genetically engineered alfalfa nationwide until the government could adequately study the crop's potential impact on organic and conventional varieties.
St. Louis-based Monsanto argued that the ban was too broad and was based on the assumption that their products were harmful. Opponents of the use of genetically engineered seeds say they can contaminate conventional crops, but Monsanto says such cross-pollination is unlikely.
"We agree that the District Court's injunction against planting went too far," said Justice Samuel Alito, who wrote the majority opinion.
Justice John Paul Stevens was the only justice to dissent. "It was reasonable for the court to conclude that planting could not go forward until more complete study ... showed that the known problem of gene flow could in reality be prevented," he said.
Alfalfa, which is used for livestock feed and can be planted in spring or fall, is a major crop grown on about 22 million acres in the U.S., Monsanto said in court papers. Monsanto's alfalfa is made from genetic material from bacteria that makes the crop resistant to Roundup.
Justice Stephen Breyer took no part in the case because his brother, U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer in San Francisco, issued the initial ruling against Monsanto.
The case is Monsanto v. Geerston Seed Farms, 09-475. Sphere: Related Content
Saturday, January 16, 2010
Follow up about Monsanto & Johnny Seeds
The other day, when I posted about Monsanto's earnings, I got a comment from Patty. It's worthy of posting so you really should go on over here and read what the owner of Johnny's has to say. And no, they are not owned by Monsanto.
Patty wrote:
Hi, Annie, thanks for keeping the axe blade to Monsanto's collective corporate throat. I'm sure you've run across this statement by Johnny's Seed but I thought a link might be appropriate here:
http://www.johnnyseeds.com/t-ownership.aspx
I've been searching for a non-Monsanto affiliated seed source, and this is a pretty good mission statement from a reliable source. Enjoy, and hope you're feeling good!! Sphere: Related Content
Patty wrote:
Hi, Annie, thanks for keeping the axe blade to Monsanto's collective corporate throat. I'm sure you've run across this statement by Johnny's Seed but I thought a link might be appropriate here:
http://www.johnnyseeds.com/t-ownership.aspx
I've been searching for a non-Monsanto affiliated seed source, and this is a pretty good mission statement from a reliable source. Enjoy, and hope you're feeling good!! Sphere: Related Content
Wednesday, January 6, 2010
Monsanto Earnings
Monsanto Co. (MON) said its fiscal first-quarter loss was $19 million, or 3 cents a share, compared to a profit of $556 million, or $1 a share, in the year-ago period. Total net sales fell to $1.7 billion from $2.6 billion.
Analysts were looking for nil earnings in the most recent quarter on sales of about $2 billion. For the full year, the company predicted ongoing earnings of $3.10 to $3.30 a share. Wall Street projected fiscal 2010 earnings of $3.35 a share, on average.
(I am posting this because I dislike Monsanto so very much! What do you think of Monsanto????) Sphere: Related Content
Analysts were looking for nil earnings in the most recent quarter on sales of about $2 billion. For the full year, the company predicted ongoing earnings of $3.10 to $3.30 a share. Wall Street projected fiscal 2010 earnings of $3.35 a share, on average.
(I am posting this because I dislike Monsanto so very much! What do you think of Monsanto????) Sphere: Related Content
Tuesday, November 3, 2009
Monsanto Loses Another Day in Court
Thursday, October 29, 2009 by: Aaron Turpen, citizen journalist
Key concepts: Monsanto, GMO and Roundup
View on NaturalPedia: Monsanto, GMO and Roundup
Articles Related to This Article: • Monsanto: History of Contamination and Cover-up
• Who and What Is the Monsanto Chemical Corporation?
• South African GMO Crop Failure Highlights Dangers of Food Supply Domination
(NaturalNews) France`s highest court has ruled that Monsanto lied about the safety of its weed killing herbicide Roundup. The decision came just days ago and confirms an earlier court judgment in France finding that Monsanto had falsely advertised Roundup as being "biodegradable" and that it "left the soil clean."
The original case was brought to court in 2001 by several French environmental groups alleging that Roundup's main ingredient, glyphosate, has a classification as "dangerous to the environment" by the European Union. That case drug on for years and finally ended in a ruling against Monsanto in 2007. 1
The GMO giant quickly appealed and that appeal was heard in 2008 in the Lyon court. Monsanto lost that case as well. They appealed again. This time it went to France's Supreme Court; it lost that hearing and now faces fines and nowhere else to go for further appeals.
The court levied a 13,800 Euro fine against the company (about $22,400USD). Monsanto is also looking at continued losses with fourth quarter losses of $233 million (US), mostly due to plummeting sales of the Roundup brand.2 So far, Monsanto has made no public statement about the court`s ruling, but it is also possible that the ruling could mean civil cases from farmers and communities harmed by the false advertising. That could mean millions of dollars more in losses.
Roundup is the world`s best-selling herbicide and is marketed as a weed-killer to both commercial farmers and home owners. Monsanto is also the world`s largest purveyor of genetically modified seeds (GMO seeds). Often, the seeds are sold in conjunction with Roundup, the seeds being modified to be "herbicide tolerant" (HT-ready).
Some have argued that these GM crops and seeds are worse for the environment and could be a real problem. Crop failures of GMO seeds in Africa have highlighted the lack of a crop diversity issue while other studies have found that GM versus non-GM seeds have little or no bearing on higher yields, as seed companies like Monsanto have claimed.
Currently, in the United States, nearly all of our soybean plants and most of our corn crops are now GMO, and most of the seed crops for those plants are Monsanto-owned. In fact, at least 68% of corn and 90% of soy is a GMO (HT-ready) crop in the U.S. now and Monsanto is working hard to make that a fact worldwide.3
Recent decisions, such as this one in France and a court finding in the U.S. earlier this month, as well as a common blockade in many European countries, are pushing back against the Monsanto takeover of our food crops. Other initiatives, such as Shelly Roche`s "Replace Roundup Challenge," are using consumer boycotts to further take it to Monsanto`s pocketbook.4, 5, 6
Resources: 1- BBC News Monsanto guilty in `false ad' row: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8...
2- BBC News Low herbicide sales hit Monsanto: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business...
3 - Huffington Post Racing Towards a Roundup-Ready Food Future: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/nancy...
4 - NaturalNews Judge rules GMOs violate environmental law: http://www.naturalnews.com/027177_f...
5 - NaturalNews How to fight back against genetically modified foods: http://www.naturalnews.com/026908_f...
6 - Bytestyle.tv Take the "Replace Roundup" Challenge: http://bytestyle.tv/content/take-re... http://www.naturalnews.com/027352_Monsanto_GMO_Roundup.html Sphere: Related Content
Key concepts: Monsanto, GMO and Roundup
View on NaturalPedia: Monsanto, GMO and Roundup
Articles Related to This Article: • Monsanto: History of Contamination and Cover-up
• Who and What Is the Monsanto Chemical Corporation?
• South African GMO Crop Failure Highlights Dangers of Food Supply Domination
(NaturalNews) France`s highest court has ruled that Monsanto lied about the safety of its weed killing herbicide Roundup. The decision came just days ago and confirms an earlier court judgment in France finding that Monsanto had falsely advertised Roundup as being "biodegradable" and that it "left the soil clean."
The original case was brought to court in 2001 by several French environmental groups alleging that Roundup's main ingredient, glyphosate, has a classification as "dangerous to the environment" by the European Union. That case drug on for years and finally ended in a ruling against Monsanto in 2007. 1
The GMO giant quickly appealed and that appeal was heard in 2008 in the Lyon court. Monsanto lost that case as well. They appealed again. This time it went to France's Supreme Court; it lost that hearing and now faces fines and nowhere else to go for further appeals.
The court levied a 13,800 Euro fine against the company (about $22,400USD). Monsanto is also looking at continued losses with fourth quarter losses of $233 million (US), mostly due to plummeting sales of the Roundup brand.2 So far, Monsanto has made no public statement about the court`s ruling, but it is also possible that the ruling could mean civil cases from farmers and communities harmed by the false advertising. That could mean millions of dollars more in losses.
Roundup is the world`s best-selling herbicide and is marketed as a weed-killer to both commercial farmers and home owners. Monsanto is also the world`s largest purveyor of genetically modified seeds (GMO seeds). Often, the seeds are sold in conjunction with Roundup, the seeds being modified to be "herbicide tolerant" (HT-ready).
Some have argued that these GM crops and seeds are worse for the environment and could be a real problem. Crop failures of GMO seeds in Africa have highlighted the lack of a crop diversity issue while other studies have found that GM versus non-GM seeds have little or no bearing on higher yields, as seed companies like Monsanto have claimed.
Currently, in the United States, nearly all of our soybean plants and most of our corn crops are now GMO, and most of the seed crops for those plants are Monsanto-owned. In fact, at least 68% of corn and 90% of soy is a GMO (HT-ready) crop in the U.S. now and Monsanto is working hard to make that a fact worldwide.3
Recent decisions, such as this one in France and a court finding in the U.S. earlier this month, as well as a common blockade in many European countries, are pushing back against the Monsanto takeover of our food crops. Other initiatives, such as Shelly Roche`s "Replace Roundup Challenge," are using consumer boycotts to further take it to Monsanto`s pocketbook.4, 5, 6
Resources: 1- BBC News Monsanto guilty in `false ad' row: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8...
2- BBC News Low herbicide sales hit Monsanto: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business...
3 - Huffington Post Racing Towards a Roundup-Ready Food Future: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/nancy...
4 - NaturalNews Judge rules GMOs violate environmental law: http://www.naturalnews.com/027177_f...
5 - NaturalNews How to fight back against genetically modified foods: http://www.naturalnews.com/026908_f...
6 - Bytestyle.tv Take the "Replace Roundup" Challenge: http://bytestyle.tv/content/take-re... http://www.naturalnews.com/027352_Monsanto_GMO_Roundup.html Sphere: Related Content
Sunday, April 26, 2009
Monsanto Sues Germany to Force GMO Food
Monsanto Sues Germany to Force GMO Food
http://www.opednews.com/articles/MEG...90422-816.html
Monsanto is now suing the German government (and, by that, the people) to force them to grow their GM Corn. Monsanto files suit against Germany over GM ban:
MON810 maize is genetically engineered to produce Bacillus thuringiensis, which is toxic to the corn borer pest. Permitted in Europe since 1998 for animal feed, it is marketed as a way to save farmers money on insecticides and other pest controls.
However German agriculture minister Ilse Aigner claimed last week that she had "legitimate reasons" to believe the maize to be a danger to the environment – and believes the Environment Ministry to agree with the view. Although MON810 has been permitted in Germany since 2005, she scrapped plans for 3,600 hectares (8,892 acres) to be planted in the eastern states for this summer's harvest.
Now the biotech giant has hit back, according to a Reuters article, filing a lawsuit against the Germany government in the administrative court in Braunschweig, northern Germany
The wire quotes a spokesperson for Monsanto as saying the ban is "arbitrary". A clause in EU law does allow member states to impose such a ban, but Monsanto claims they can only do so once a plant has already been approved if new scientific evidence has come to light.
If the outcome of the lawsuit is in Monsanto's favour, the cost to the German government has been estimated at between €6m and €7m....
Germany's response to Monsanto: "Eat it!" Sphere: Related Content
http://www.opednews.com/articles/MEG...90422-816.html
Monsanto is now suing the German government (and, by that, the people) to force them to grow their GM Corn. Monsanto files suit against Germany over GM ban:
MON810 maize is genetically engineered to produce Bacillus thuringiensis, which is toxic to the corn borer pest. Permitted in Europe since 1998 for animal feed, it is marketed as a way to save farmers money on insecticides and other pest controls.
However German agriculture minister Ilse Aigner claimed last week that she had "legitimate reasons" to believe the maize to be a danger to the environment – and believes the Environment Ministry to agree with the view. Although MON810 has been permitted in Germany since 2005, she scrapped plans for 3,600 hectares (8,892 acres) to be planted in the eastern states for this summer's harvest.
Now the biotech giant has hit back, according to a Reuters article, filing a lawsuit against the Germany government in the administrative court in Braunschweig, northern Germany
The wire quotes a spokesperson for Monsanto as saying the ban is "arbitrary". A clause in EU law does allow member states to impose such a ban, but Monsanto claims they can only do so once a plant has already been approved if new scientific evidence has come to light.
If the outcome of the lawsuit is in Monsanto's favour, the cost to the German government has been estimated at between €6m and €7m....
Germany's response to Monsanto: "Eat it!" Sphere: Related Content
Tuesday, March 10, 2009
Monsanto Court Decision
Press Releases
FEDERAL COURT FINDS USDA ERRED IN APPROVING GENETICALLY ENGINEERED ALFALFA WITHOUT FULL ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE February 14, 2007
Contact: Will Rostov, Center for Food Safety, 415-826-2770
Joseph Mendelson, Center for Food Safety (202) 547-9359
(Note: Individual farmers and representatives of organizations who are plaintiffs in the lawsuit are available for comment).
Precedent-setting Decision May Block Planting, Sales of Monsanto Alfalfa
Washington, DC (February 14, 2007) -
In a decision handed down yesterday, a Federal Court has ruled, for the first time ever, that the U.S. Department of Agriculture failed to abide by federal environmental laws when it approved a genetically engineered crop without conducting a full Environment Impact Statement (EIS).
In what will likely be a precedent-setting ruling, U.S. District Court Judge Charles R. Breyer of the Northern District of California decided in favor of farmers, consumers, and environmentalists who filed a suit calling the USDA's approval of genetically engineered (GE) alfalfa a threat to farmers livelihoods and a risk to the environment. Judge Breyer ordered that a full Environmental Impact Statement must be carried out on "Roundup Ready" alfalfa, the GE variety developed by Monsanto and Forage Genetics. The decision may prevent this seasons sales and planting of Monsanto's GE alfalfa and future submissions of other GE crops for commercial deregulation.
Judge Breyer concluded that the lawsuit, brought last year by a coalition of groups led by the Center for Food Safety, raised valid concerns about environmental impacts that the USDA failed to address before approving the commercialization and release of Roundup Ready alfalfa.
In his ruling, the judge consistently found USDA's arguments unconvincing, without scientific basis, and/or contrary to the law. For example:
* The judge found that plaintiffs' concerns that Roundup Ready alfalfa will contaminate natural and organic alfalfa are valid, stating that USDA's opposing arguments were "not convincing" and do not demonstrate the "hard look" required by federal environmental laws. The ruling went on to note that "&For those farmers who choose to grow non-genetically engineered alfalfa, the possibility that their crops will be infected with the engineered gene is tantamount to the elimination of all alfalfa; they cannot grow their chosen crop."
* USDA argued that, based on a legal technicality, the agency did not have to address the economic risks to organic and conventional growers whose alfalfa crop could be contaminated by Monsanto's GE variety. But the judge found that USDA "overstates the law. Economic effects are relevant when they are 'interelated' with 'natural or physical environmental effects.' Here, the economic effects on the organic and conventional farmers of the government's deregulation decision are interrelated with, and, indeed, a direct result of, the effect on the physical environment."
* Judge Breyer found that USDA failed to address the problem of Roundup-resistant "superweeds" that could follow commercial planting of GE alfalfa. Commenting on the agency's refusal to assess this risk, the judge noted that "Nothing in NEPA, the relevant regulations, or the caselaw support such a cavalier response."
"This is a major victory for farmers and the environment," said Andrew Kimbrell, Executive Director of the Center for Food Safety. "Not only has a Federal Court recognized that USDA failed to consider the environmental and economic threats posed by GE alfalfa, but it has also questioned whether any agency in the federal government is looking at the cumulative impacts of GE crop approvals."
"This is another nail in the coffin for USDA's hands-off approach to regulations on these risky engineered crops," said Will Rostov, Senior Attorney of The Center for Food Safety, which just last week won another judgment calling for USDA to provide more environmental documentation for any new GE field trials.
"This ruling will help protect my rights as a consumer to choose, and I choose organic foods whenever and wherever I can," said Dean Hulse, Fargo, ND-based spokesperson for Dakota Resource Council and the Western Organization of Resource Councils. "The decision rejects Monsanto's claims that transgenic crops are safe for the environment. Many people have been skeptical of those claims, and now we have a judge who's skeptical as well - a judge who has actually studied the facts."
The suit also cited the urgent concerns of farmers who sell to export markets. Japan and South Korea, Americas most important alfalfa customers, have warned that they will discontinue imports of U.S. alfalfa if a GE variety is grown in this country. U.S. alfalfa exports total nearly $480 million per year, with about 75% headed to Japan.
The Court disagreed with USDA's assertion that exports to Japan would not be harmed by deregulation of GE alfalfa.
"Today's ruling reinforces what Sierra Club has been saying all along: the government should look before it leaps and examine how genetically engineered alfalfa could harm the environment before approving its widespread use," said Neil Carman of the Sierra Club's genetic engineering committee. "That's just plain common sense."
Alfalfa is grown on over 21 million acres, and is worth $8 billion per year (not including the value of final products, such as dairy), making it the countrys third most valuable and fourth most widely grown crop. Alfalfa is primarily used in feed for dairy cows and beef cattle, and it also greatly contributes to pork, lamb, sheep, and honey production. Consumers also eat alfalfa as sprouts in salads and other foods.
"We applaud the decision of the Court," said Bill Wenzel of the National Family Farm Coalition. "Its unfortunate that we have to turn to judges to do what's right for farmers while the USDA carries water for the biotech companies."
Pat Trask of Trask Family Seeds, a South Dakota conventional alfalfa grower and plaintiff in the case stated: "It's a great day for God's own alfalfa."
The Center for Food Safety represented itself and the following co-plaintiffs in the suit: Western Organization of Resource Councils, National Family Farm Coalition, Sierra Club, Beyond Pesticides, Cornucopia Institute, Dakota Resource Council, Trask Family Seeds, and Geertson Seed Farms.
Edited: Just now noticing this decision came down in the Fall of 2008. Still note worthy! Sphere: Related Content
FEDERAL COURT FINDS USDA ERRED IN APPROVING GENETICALLY ENGINEERED ALFALFA WITHOUT FULL ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE February 14, 2007
Contact: Will Rostov, Center for Food Safety, 415-826-2770
Joseph Mendelson, Center for Food Safety (202) 547-9359
(Note: Individual farmers and representatives of organizations who are plaintiffs in the lawsuit are available for comment).
Precedent-setting Decision May Block Planting, Sales of Monsanto Alfalfa
Washington, DC (February 14, 2007) -
In a decision handed down yesterday, a Federal Court has ruled, for the first time ever, that the U.S. Department of Agriculture failed to abide by federal environmental laws when it approved a genetically engineered crop without conducting a full Environment Impact Statement (EIS).
In what will likely be a precedent-setting ruling, U.S. District Court Judge Charles R. Breyer of the Northern District of California decided in favor of farmers, consumers, and environmentalists who filed a suit calling the USDA's approval of genetically engineered (GE) alfalfa a threat to farmers livelihoods and a risk to the environment. Judge Breyer ordered that a full Environmental Impact Statement must be carried out on "Roundup Ready" alfalfa, the GE variety developed by Monsanto and Forage Genetics. The decision may prevent this seasons sales and planting of Monsanto's GE alfalfa and future submissions of other GE crops for commercial deregulation.
Judge Breyer concluded that the lawsuit, brought last year by a coalition of groups led by the Center for Food Safety, raised valid concerns about environmental impacts that the USDA failed to address before approving the commercialization and release of Roundup Ready alfalfa.
In his ruling, the judge consistently found USDA's arguments unconvincing, without scientific basis, and/or contrary to the law. For example:
* The judge found that plaintiffs' concerns that Roundup Ready alfalfa will contaminate natural and organic alfalfa are valid, stating that USDA's opposing arguments were "not convincing" and do not demonstrate the "hard look" required by federal environmental laws. The ruling went on to note that "&For those farmers who choose to grow non-genetically engineered alfalfa, the possibility that their crops will be infected with the engineered gene is tantamount to the elimination of all alfalfa; they cannot grow their chosen crop."
* USDA argued that, based on a legal technicality, the agency did not have to address the economic risks to organic and conventional growers whose alfalfa crop could be contaminated by Monsanto's GE variety. But the judge found that USDA "overstates the law. Economic effects are relevant when they are 'interelated' with 'natural or physical environmental effects.' Here, the economic effects on the organic and conventional farmers of the government's deregulation decision are interrelated with, and, indeed, a direct result of, the effect on the physical environment."
* Judge Breyer found that USDA failed to address the problem of Roundup-resistant "superweeds" that could follow commercial planting of GE alfalfa. Commenting on the agency's refusal to assess this risk, the judge noted that "Nothing in NEPA, the relevant regulations, or the caselaw support such a cavalier response."
"This is a major victory for farmers and the environment," said Andrew Kimbrell, Executive Director of the Center for Food Safety. "Not only has a Federal Court recognized that USDA failed to consider the environmental and economic threats posed by GE alfalfa, but it has also questioned whether any agency in the federal government is looking at the cumulative impacts of GE crop approvals."
"This is another nail in the coffin for USDA's hands-off approach to regulations on these risky engineered crops," said Will Rostov, Senior Attorney of The Center for Food Safety, which just last week won another judgment calling for USDA to provide more environmental documentation for any new GE field trials.
"This ruling will help protect my rights as a consumer to choose, and I choose organic foods whenever and wherever I can," said Dean Hulse, Fargo, ND-based spokesperson for Dakota Resource Council and the Western Organization of Resource Councils. "The decision rejects Monsanto's claims that transgenic crops are safe for the environment. Many people have been skeptical of those claims, and now we have a judge who's skeptical as well - a judge who has actually studied the facts."
The suit also cited the urgent concerns of farmers who sell to export markets. Japan and South Korea, Americas most important alfalfa customers, have warned that they will discontinue imports of U.S. alfalfa if a GE variety is grown in this country. U.S. alfalfa exports total nearly $480 million per year, with about 75% headed to Japan.
The Court disagreed with USDA's assertion that exports to Japan would not be harmed by deregulation of GE alfalfa.
"Today's ruling reinforces what Sierra Club has been saying all along: the government should look before it leaps and examine how genetically engineered alfalfa could harm the environment before approving its widespread use," said Neil Carman of the Sierra Club's genetic engineering committee. "That's just plain common sense."
Alfalfa is grown on over 21 million acres, and is worth $8 billion per year (not including the value of final products, such as dairy), making it the countrys third most valuable and fourth most widely grown crop. Alfalfa is primarily used in feed for dairy cows and beef cattle, and it also greatly contributes to pork, lamb, sheep, and honey production. Consumers also eat alfalfa as sprouts in salads and other foods.
"We applaud the decision of the Court," said Bill Wenzel of the National Family Farm Coalition. "Its unfortunate that we have to turn to judges to do what's right for farmers while the USDA carries water for the biotech companies."
Pat Trask of Trask Family Seeds, a South Dakota conventional alfalfa grower and plaintiff in the case stated: "It's a great day for God's own alfalfa."
The Center for Food Safety represented itself and the following co-plaintiffs in the suit: Western Organization of Resource Councils, National Family Farm Coalition, Sierra Club, Beyond Pesticides, Cornucopia Institute, Dakota Resource Council, Trask Family Seeds, and Geertson Seed Farms.
Edited: Just now noticing this decision came down in the Fall of 2008. Still note worthy! Sphere: Related Content
Wednesday, June 25, 2008
Monsanto Earnings
Monsanto Co. (MON) said third-quarter earnings jumped to $811 million, or $1.45 a share, from $570 million, or $1.03 a share in the year-ago period. The St. Louis-based agricultural-products provider said total net sales rose 26.4% to $3.59 billion. Analysts polled by FactSet Research expected, on average, earnings of $1.36 a share on sales of $3.6 billion. Monsanto also raised its full-year profit guidance to $3.63 a share.
Big business, unreal... Sphere: Related Content
Big business, unreal... Sphere: Related Content
Thursday, April 24, 2008
Monsanto Article in Vanity Fair
There's a good article in this month's issue...but it's also available on line...click here to read it
http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2008/05/monsanto200805?printable=true¤tPage=all
Here's the header, it's a pretty interesting read!
"Monsanto already dominates America’s food chain with its genetically modified seeds. Now it has targeted milk production. Just as frightening as the corporation’s tactics–ruthless legal battles against small farmers–is its decades-long history of toxic contamination"
I find the idea of genetically modified seeds downright scary...think about it. Sphere: Related Content
http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2008/05/monsanto200805?printable=true¤tPage=all
Here's the header, it's a pretty interesting read!
"Monsanto already dominates America’s food chain with its genetically modified seeds. Now it has targeted milk production. Just as frightening as the corporation’s tactics–ruthless legal battles against small farmers–is its decades-long history of toxic contamination"
I find the idea of genetically modified seeds downright scary...think about it. Sphere: Related Content
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
