First Senate Agricultural Committee Meeting in 10 Years Cheers GMOs, Ignores Dangers

...

 

Is there a conflict of interest?

 

 

by Christina Sarich
Posted on October 27, 2015

 

 

The U.S. Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry held a biotechnology hearing for the first time in 10 years last week to discuss the future of food technology as the industry responds to increased demand, production challenges, and consumers’ calls for a safe and transparent food supply. But the meeting came up short on transparency and carried on more like a Monsanto share-holders meeting than an unbiased inquiry into the pros and cons of biotechnology where it concerns the food supply.

Senator after senator praised biotechnology and genetically modified foods, claiming they had ‘come a long way’ in ten years. Pamela Bailey, president and CEO of the Grocery Manufacturers Association said:

“The Senate Agriculture hearing reaffirmed the broad consensus among scientists and regulators that GMOs are safe and highlighted the real world negative impacts a patchwork of state labeling mandates will have on farmers, businesses and consumers. Action by Congress is urgently needed this year to pass a national, uniform labeling standard.”

The senate hearing was scheduled shortly after the US House of Representatives passed the “Safe and Accurate Food Labeling Act of 2015,” otherwise known as the DARK Act (Deny Americans the Right to Know) by a vote of 275-150.

Read More Here

'America is a bomb waiting to explode'

Sam Gerrans is an English writer, translator, support counselor and activist. He also has professional backgrounds in media, strategic communications and technology. He is driven by commitment to ultimate meaning, and focused on authentic approaches to revelation and realpolitik.

Published time: 18 Oct, 2015 10:27

 

© Carlo Allegri / Reuters

9.3K8534

The United States is in decline. While not all major shocks to the system will be devastating, when the right one comes along, the outcome may be dramatic.

 

Not all explosives are the same. We all know you have to be careful with dynamite. Best to handle it gently and not smoke while you’re around it.

Semtex is different. You can drop it. You can throw it. You can put it in the fire. Nothing will happen. Nothing until you put the right detonator in it, that is.

To me, the US – and most of the supposedly free West – increasingly looks like a truck being systematically filled with Semtex.


READ MORE: 'US 2016 race: People sick of politics of personalities, want substantive debate' 

 
But it’s easy to counter cries of alarm with the fact that the truck is stable – because it’s true: you can hurl more boxes into the back without any real danger. Absent the right detonator, it is no more dangerous than a truckload of mayonnaise.

But add the right detonator and you’re just one click away from complete devastation.
We can see how fragile the U.S. is now by considering just four tendencies.

1. Destruction of farms and reliable food source

The average American is a long way from food when the shops are closed.
The Washington Post reports that the number of farms in the country has fallen by some 4 million from more than 6 million in 1935 to roughly 2 million in 2012.

And according to the College of Agriculture & Life Sciences, only about 2 percent of the US population live on farms.

That means that around 4.6 million people currently have the means to feed themselves.
Food supply logistics are extended, sometimes stretching thousands of miles. The shops have nothing more than a few days’ stock. A simple break in that supply line would clear the shops out in days.

© Stephen Lam / Reuters

Read More Here

Italy and Austria join growing list of countries banning GMO agriculture. EU Committee Wants to Demolish their right to do so.

 

NaturalNews

Italy and Austria join growing list of countries banning GMO agriculture

Thursday, October 15, 2015 by: J. D. Heyes

(NaturalNews) European nations are leading the world in rejecting genetically modified organisms in food and crops, with two more countries recently joining the list: Italy and Austria.

As reported by Nation of Change, Italian ministries have opted to utilize the newly created European Union rules that permit member countries to opt out of growing GM crops. Austrian officials joined in as well, with both nations making the decision to stop growing eight varieties of GM maize, which essentially amounted to a complete ban on GM crops.

The EU's opt-out regulations were implemented earlier this year. They allow member states to decide on their own if they want to continue using GM crops or ban them altogether.

As reported by Sustainable Pulse, a number of other countries in the EU have also opted out of GM crops:

Wales: "These new rules proposed by the European Commission provide Wales with the necessary tools to maintain our cautionary approach by allowing us to control the future cultivation of GM crops in Wales," said Welsh Deputy Minister for Farming and Food, Rebecca Evans. "It will allow us to protect the significant investment we have made in our organic sector and safeguard the agricultural land in Wales that is managed under voluntary agri-environment schemes."

She added: "Farming and food processing businesses remain the driving force of our rural economy. Our emphasis is on competing on quality, strong branding and adding value through local processing. We, therefore, need to preserve consumer confidence and maintain our focus on a clean, green, natural environment. "

Poland: In 2013, the Polish government actually adopted a regulation that banned GMO farming in the country, well ahead of the EU action. But once the EU approved its regulation giving member nations the right to ban if they chose, that was more than enough authority for the Polish government to act.

"Now we no longer have to explain the scientific aspects and we can already relate to social issues," Polish Agriculture Minister Marek Sawicki said at the time of the country's ban.

Germany: German government officials announced in late September that the country would no longer permit the cultivation of GM crops, as stated by German Agriculture Minister Christian Schmidt.

Slovenia: Slovenian Agriculture Minister Dejan Zidan said in announcing the country's ban that "the government adopted the decision for a request for the exclusion of the entire geographical territory of Slovenia for GM maize to the EU, including the already registered variety MON 810 and seven other varieties which are in the process of registration with the European Commission. This allows me to formally send the request as the Ministry of Agriculture in accordance with the law for the exclusion of Slovenia with the regards to the cultivation of GM maize."

Serbia: State Secretary in the Serbian Ministry of Agriculture and Environmental Protection Danilo Golubovic recently announced the country's GMO ban. In making the announcement, Golubovic said the decision was based on a desire to improve public health and safety.

Bulgaria: This government has decided to burnish its clean and green image by banning GM crops. As noted by Sustainable Pulse's director, Henry Rowlands, "Bulgaria is home to a wide variety of unique flora and fauna and is also the base of many ancient civilizations, it is with this background that Bulgarians know what is at risk when it comes to using an untested and unnecessary technology."

European nations that have opted out of growing GM crops thus far are Latvia, France, Austria, Cyprus, Lithuania, the Netherlands, Scotland, Northern Ireland, Poland, Germany, Greece, Croatia, Hungary, Slovenia and Italy, Sustainable Pulse reported.

Sources:

BullHorn.NationOfChange.org

SustainablePulse.com

Reuters.com
EcoWatch.com

Reuters.com

About NaturalNews

The NaturalNews Network is a non-profit collection of public education websites covering topics that empower individuals to make positive changes in their health, environmental sensitivity, consumer choices and informed skepticism. The NaturalNews Network is owned and operated by Truth Publishing International, Ltd., a Taiwan corporation. It is not recognized as a 501(c)3 non-profit in the United States, but it operates without a profit incentive, and its key writer, Mike Adams, receives absolutely no payment for his time, articles or books other than reimbursement for items purchased in order to conduct product reviews.

The vast majority of our content is freely given away at no charge. We offer thousands of articles and dozens of downloadable reports and guides (like the Honest Food Guide) that are designed to educate and empower individuals, families and communities so that they may experience improved health, awareness and life fulfillment.

Learn More About Natural News Here

 

...................................................................................................

by Christina Sarich
Posted on October 15, 2015

 

EU Committee Wants to Demolish Existing Law Allowing Member States to Ban GMOs

As 19 EU nations plan GMO bans

Stating a concern that the proposed law would lead to the reintroduction of border controls between GM and non-GMO-growing countries, the European Parliament news service reported that Members of the Environment Committee shot down a draft EU law that would allow member states to restrict or prohibit sales of genetically modified crops.

This vote goes against numerous EU states that have made it clear in recent months that they plan to instate total bans on GM crops. A total of 19 EU countries have sent letters to the EP saying that they plan GM bans, citing concern over spoiling agricultural markets, and also the desire to provide their citizens with organic food.

Read More Here

Fears mount that the USDA's organic certification process is being hijacked by corporate interests

 

 

 Natural News

..

 

Wednesday, September 23, 2015 by: J. D. Heyes

 

 

(NaturalNews) Some organic food experts are worried that the term used to describe non-genetically modified crops and produce may soon become nearly meaningless, thanks in large part to undue (read corporate) influence on the Department of Agriculture.

According to Jerome Rigot, PhD, writing in a blog posted at the Cornucopia Institute, which promotes food safety backed by science, it may no longer be accurate to rely on the USDA's "organic" labeling as remaining "true to its mandate of assuring consumers that food under this label is truly healthy and grown or raised with minimal impact to the environment," as well as respecting "the health and well-being of the workers and animals involved."

Rigot notes that, among other concerns, Consumers Union, the publisher of Consumer Reports, recently downgraded its rating of the Agriculture Department's organic seal and label. The director of the Consumer Safety and Sustainability Center for the magazine, Dr. Urvashi Rangan, testified to the National Organic Standards Board in late 2014: "Organic is slipping. And as a result, we have downgraded its rating from highly meaningful to meaningful." He further noted that the rule of the magazine "is to help educate people about what organic means as well as what it doesn't mean."
Regarding these concerns, Rigot wrote:

As an example, the Cornucopia Institute filed formal legal complaints with the USDA in December 2014 against 14 giant poultry and dairy CAFOs (read: concentrated animal feeding operations or "factory farms") for allegedly violating the USDA organic regulations requiring outdoor and pasture access. Each complaint was summarily dismissed, without an investigation, by the enforcement division of the National Organic Program (NOP), which stated, "The NOP has reviewed these complaints and has determined that investigation is unwarranted."

Inept, corporatists or lobbyists

The determination was odd, says Rigot, because literally hundreds of high-res photos, satellite imagery and state regulatory documents were submitted as evidence to the NOP which, together, should have produced more than enough doubt to motivate someone to launch an investigation.
A former NOSB board member who manages the country's first certified organic dairy farm, Kevin Englebert, was clearly disappointed by the NOP decision, seeing it as a lapse of the organization's responsibilities.

"For the NOP to not even investigate these facilities means one of three things: 1) the personnel who made that decision are inept, 2) they are too close and friendly with corporate lobbyists and multimillion-dollar certifiers that are involved in the process, or 3) the most likely scenario, corrupt politicians are preventing them from enforcing the law," he said, as quoted by Rigot, who intimated that elements of all three reasons might be at play.

He noted that the National Organic Program is a very small part of the Agriculture Department. However, many large corporations have a significant vested interest in organic foods, especially the processed foods industry (including General Mills, Smuckers, Coca-Cola, etc.), and similar to GMO corporations, they'll do whatever it takes to expand their bottom line.

"Circumstantial evidence makes it reasonable to conclude that the same type of undue industry influence that appears to have prevented Vilsack and the USDA from acting quickly to end the Salmonella outbreak [in 2014] and limit the health toll is behind efforts to dilute the federal organic standards, control the NOP leadership, and limit or obstruct the ability of the congressionally authorized National Organic Standard Board from doing its job efficiently and with integrity," Rigot wrote.

For more breaking news regarding organic agriculture, check out Organics.news, powered by FETCH.news.

Compromised board members

In September 2014, we reported that the Cornucopia Institute had conducted a study to examine the voting records and backgrounds of the 15 members of the NOSB.

The board is an advisory body created by the secretary of agriculture to make recommendations aimed at preserving and protecting the organic farming industry. What's more, the board is also required to maintain and update the National List of Approved and Prohibited Substances – a list that identifies substances and other compounds that cannot be used in organic crop and livestock production.

The NOSB's seats are supposed to be filled with members representing farmers, environmentalists, public interest advocates, handlers, retailers, scientists and a USDA certifying agent. However, Cornucopia found in its study that corporate representatives were filling seats intended for farmers and other independent organic industry stakeholders, often leading to decisions that were not beneficial to the organic food and livestock industry.

Details surrounding that study are posted here.

Sources:
Cornucopia.org
NaturalNews.com
AMS.USDA.gov

Landslide victory against Biotech crops : Despite hundreds of thousands of dollars spent by companies like Monsanto. Jackson County, Oregon are now enjoying a landslide victory against GMO crops being grown within it's borders.

Genetically engineered crops banned in Jackson County, Oregon in landslide victory against GMOs

Wednesday, May 21, 2014

by Mike Adams, the Health Ranger

(NaturalNews) A ban on the growing of all genetically engineered plants appears to be a landslide victory in Jackson County, Oregon. With 100 percent of the precincts reporting and a huge voter turnout of over 50 percent, nearly 66% of voters elected to ban all genetically engineered crops from being grown in the county.

The vote ran 39,489 to 20,432 in favor of the ban, and it sends a clear signal that the People of Jackson County, Oregon -- a largely agricultural area of the country -- absolutely do not want genetically engineered crops to be growing anywhere near them. (Click here to see county election results.)

This is on top of the recent victory in Vermont where lawmakers passed a mandatory GMO labeling law that requires foods to be honestly labeled with their GMO content. (The evil biotech industry and its Grocery Manufacturers of America front group plant to sue Vermont to keep consumers in the dark.)

"Destroy all genetically engineered plants"

This ordinance in Oregon requires everyone to "destroy" all genetically engineered plants except those grown under indoor laboratory conditions (i.e. those which are safely isolated from the wild). This will allow scientists to continue to study GMOs without risking the lives of everyone else in the process.

Click here to read the full text of the ordinance (PDF).

Read More Here

.....

Oregon counties ban cultivation of GMO crops

Published time: May 21, 2014 16:37
Edited time: May 22, 2014 11:18

Reuters/Ints Kalnins

Despite the flood of corporate money poured into two small Oregon counties, local residents voted on Tuesday to ban genetically engineered crops from being planted within their borders.
Although Jackson County itself is home to less than 120,000 registered voters, the measure to ban genetically modified crops (GMOs) made headlines around the nation when it was revealed that large biotech companies like Monsanto were pouring hundreds of thousands of dollars into the area in order to affect the vote’s outcome.
As RT reported previously, Monsanto and five other corporations spent at least $455,000 in an attempt to defeat the initiative, and opponents of the GMO ban had gained an eight-to-one spending advantage as of April. According to the Associated Press, nearly $1 million of the $1.3 million spent during the campaign was used by opponents.
When the results were tallied, however, 66 percent of Jackson County residents voted in favor of the ban.
"We fought the most powerful and influential chemical companies in the world and we won," local farmer and anti-GMO advocate Elise Higley told the Oregonian.
"It's a great day for the people of Oregon who care about sustainability and healthy ecosystems," added the group GMO Free Oregon on its Facebook page.

Read More Here

.....

Related articles

• Rural Oregon voters back ban on GMO crops amid U.S. labeling uproar
• Oregon counties ban genetically modified crops
• Battle Over Genetically Modified Foods in Oregon
• Jackson County, Oregon, approves GMO ban
• Oregon counties ban genetically modified crops
• Oregon counties ban genetically modified crops
• Oregon counties ban cultivation of GMO crops
• Rural Oregon county votes to ban GMOs, despite $1 million opposition effort

GMO Update—Vermont Passes GMO Labeling Bill and Stands Up to Industry Bullying as New Research Confirms Safety Concerns

Playing Keep Away From GMOs

SuperMarket News

.....

By Dr. Mercola

In a recent article titled "Monsanto GM Soy is Scarier than You Think," Mother Jones¹ went into some of the details surrounding our genetically engineered (GE) food supply.
Soybeans are the second-largest food crop grown in the US, and more than 90 percent of it is genetically engineered. Some have been modified to withstand the herbicide Roundup (i.e. Roundup-Ready soy), while other varieties have been designed to produce its own pesticide, courtesy of the Bt gene (so-called Bt soy).
As noted in the featured article, organic soy production is miniscule, accounting for less than one percent of the total acreage devoted to soy in the US. The rest is conventionally grown non-GE soy.
Even if you don't buy soy products such as tofu or soy milk, you're undoubtedly consuming plenty of soy if you're eating any processed foods and/or meats from animals raised in confined animal feeding operations (CAFOs). A large portion of the GE soy grown actually ends up in your meat, as soy is a staple of conventional livestock feed. Much of the rest ends up as vegetable oil.
According to the US Soy Board, soybean oil accounts for more than 60 percent of all the vegetable oil consumed in the US—most of which is used in processed foods and fast food preparation. As noted in the featured article:²

"Given soy's centrality to our food and agriculture systems, the findings of a new study published in the peer-reviewed journal Food Chemistry³ are worth pondering.
The authors found that Monsanto's ubiquitous Roundup Ready soybeans... contain more herbicide residues than their non-GMO counterparts. The team also found that the GM beans are nutritionally inferior."

New Research Questions Quality and Safety of GE Soybeans

Three varieties of Iowa-grown soybeans were investigated in this study:⁴

1. Roundup Ready soybeans
2. Non-GE, conventional soybeans grown using Roundup herbicide
3. Organic soybeans, grown without agricultural chemicals

All of the Roundup Ready soybean samples were found to contain residues of glyphosate, which is the active ingredient in Roundup, along with its amino acid metabolite, aminomethylphosphonic acid (AMPA).
On average, GE soy contained 11.9 parts per million (ppm) of glyphosate. The highest residue level found was 20.1 ppm. Meanwhile, no residues of either kind were found in the conventional non-GE and organic varieties.
In terms of nutrition, organic soybeans contained slightly higher levels of protein and lower levels of omega-6, compared to both conventionally-grown non-GE and GE soy. Similar results were found in a 2012 nutritional analysis of GE corn, which was found to contain 13 ppm of glyphosate, compared to zero in non-GMO corn.
It may be worth noting that the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) actually raised the allowable levels of glyphosate^{5, 6} in oilseed crops such as soy, from 20 ppm to 40 ppm just last summer. It also raised the levels of permissible glyphosate contamination in other foods—many of which were raised to 15-25 times previous levels!

Why Glyphosate Contamination Matters

Nearly one BILLION pounds of Roundup are used each year for conventional crop production around the globe, but genetically engineered (GE) crops see some of the heaviest use. This is especially true for Roundup Ready crops, which are designed to withstand otherwise lethal doses of this chemical.
The issue of glyphosate contamination is well worth considering if you value your health. Recent research suggests glyphosate may in fact be an instrumental driver of many chronic diseases, and in my view, avoiding glyphosate is a major reason for buying organic, in and of itself.
Labeling GMOs could help you select products that are less likely to have heavy contamination, although you'd also avoid many other hazardous chemicals used in conventional farming by opting for products labeled 100% organic.
It's important to understand that these glyphosate residues CANNOT be washed off, as the chemical is actively integrated into every cell in the plant. Dr. Don Huber, who is one of the most prominent scientific experts in plant toxicology, firmly believes glyphosate is FAR more toxic and dangerous than DDT. A number of other studies have raised serious questions about the safety of glyphosate, including but not limited to the following:

• Research published in the International Journal of Toxicology⁷ in January revealed that glyphosate-based formulations like Roundup pose a threat to human health through cytotoxicity and oxidative effects. Such formulations were also found to be lethal to human liver cells
• A 2012 study⁸ found that 3 ppm of Roundup in water induced morphological changes in frogs
• A German study⁹ on poultry, published in 2013, showed that glyphosate tends to be more harmful to beneficial gut bacteria like Lactobacillus, while pathogenic bacteria like Salmonella entritidi tend to be largely resistant to the chemical. Subsequently, the microbial balance tends to shift toward pathogenic overgrowth when exposed to glyphosate, and can predispose the animal to botulism

Victory! Vermont Passes First Effective GMO-Labeling Bill

On April 16, 2014, the Vermont Senate passed the first no-strings-attached GMO labeling bill (H.112) by an overwhelming margin—28-2. The bill sailed through a House/Senate conference committee and was approved by the House of Representatives on April 23.
Governor Shumlin has already indicated he will be signing the bill into law—which will require any genetically engineered food sold in Vermont to be labeled by July 1, 2016.¹⁰ Food served in restaurants, alcohol, meat, and dairy products would be exempt from labeling however. Foods containing GMO ingredients would also not be allowed to be labeled "natural."

"I am proud of Vermont for being the first state in the nation to ensure that Vermonters will know what is in their food," Governor Shumlin said in a statement. "The Legislature has spoken loud and clear through its passage of this bill. I wholeheartedly agree with them and look forward to signing this bill into law."

This is truly an historical moment that will likely reverberate across the US in coming years. As noted by Ronnie Cummins in a recent Huffington Post article:¹¹

"Strictly speaking, Vermont's H.112 applies only to Vermont. But it will have the same impact on the marketplace as a federal law. Because national food and beverage companies and supermarkets will not likely risk the ire of their customers by admitting that many of the foods and brands they are selling in Vermont are genetically engineered, and deceptively labeled as 'natural' or 'all natural' while simultaneously trying to conceal this fact in the other 49 states and North American markets. As a seed executive for Monsanto admitted 20 years ago, 'If you put a label on genetically engineered food you might as well put a skull and crossbones on it.'"

The Burlington Free Press¹² recently ran an excellent article on how the Vermont GMO labeling bill was won. I would highly encourage you to read it in its entirety, to get a real-world view of just how effective a grassroots campaign can be. It really boils down to letting your representatives know what you want. Despite the threat of a lawsuit from food manufacturers, Vermont legislators realized that their constituents were serious about wanting GMOs labeled. And they voted accordingly. Indeed, the chemical technology and food industry knows this, which is why they've fought tooth and nail to stop any and all GMO labeling efforts in the US. They've even threatened to sue any state that passes a labeling law—a threat taken seriously by Vermont.

Vermont Braces for Legal Challenge

Vermont Senate agreed to establish a state defense fund to pay for legal costs associated with defending the law against any legal challenge by the food industry, which will undoubtedly be spearheaded by the Grocery Manufacturers Association (GMA). It's unlikely that the industry would win such a legal challenge, however. As reported by the Burlington Free Press:¹³

"Rep. Teo Zagar, D-Barnard, told House members that... changes the Senate made will help the state prevail in court. 'This bill has been re-engineered to be more resistant to legal challenge,' he said."

As you may recall, after getting caught laundering money and narrowly defeating the Washington labeling campaign, the Grocery Manufacturers Association (GMA) sued the state of Washington, arguing they should be allowed to hide their donors—which is a direct violation of state campaign disclosure laws—in order to "speak with one voice" for the interests of the food industry.¹⁴ I subsequently named the GMA "the most evil corporation on the planet," considering the fact that it consists primarily of pesticide producers and junk food manufacturers who are hell-bent on violating some of your most basic rights, just to protect their own profits.
The GMA was initially forced to reveal their donors, but has since removed their online membership list—again hiding their members to prevent consumer awareness of who is behind this radical front group. You can find the cached members list on web.archive.org¹⁵ however. Not surprisingly, Pepsi, Coke, and Nestle—top purveyors of chronic ill health—were the top funders trying to hide their identity during the Washington State GMO labeling campaign.

Read More Here

Related articles

• GMO Soy Is Scarier Than You Think
• How "Extreme Levels" of Roundup in Food Became the Industry Norm
• 'Extreme levels' of Roundup are the norm in GMO soya
• GMO Update - Vermont Passes GMO Labeling Bill and Stands Up to Industry Bullying as New Research Confirms Safety Concerns
• "Extreme Levels" Of Herbicide Roundup Found In Food

CFS Warns the EPA Will Approve Agent Orange on GE Crops

Food Poisoning Bulletin

May 2, 2014 by Linda Larsen 

The Center for Food Safety is warning the public that the EPA is set to approve the direct spraying of the herbicide 2,4-dichlorophenoxyacetic acid (2,4-D) on Dow Chemical’s genetically engineered corn and soybeans. That chemical is one-half of the compound called “Agent Orange” used in Vietnam to destroy foliage; it caused cancer among Vietnam veterans. EPA will render a decision after a 30 day comment period. Dow developed the GE crops, known as “Enlist”, to withstand high doses of 2,4-D (which it also sells) after its disastrous Roundup Ready crops created glyphosate-resistant superweeds.
You can sign a petition opposing this action at CFS web site called “Dow Watch”. CFS opposes this move by the EPA because they state, “wide scale use of herbicides in tandem with GE crops has led to an epidemic of herbicide resistant weeds, and the next step in the chemical arms race is Dow Chemical’s 2,4-D, a chemical linked to major health problems including cancer, Parkinson’s disease, endocrine disruption, and reproductive problems.”

Read More Here

.....

​EPA advances approval of powerful weed killer for Dow’s ‘Agent Orange’ GMO crops

Published time: May 02, 2014 00:56
Edited time: May 03, 2014 14:35

Reuters / Doug Wilson / USDA Photo / Handout

The US Environmental Protection Agency has revealed a proposal for mass use of Dow Chemical’s herbicide 2,4-D on the company’s genetically-engineered corn and soybeans. The GE crops were developed to withstand several herbicides, including 2,4-D.
Dow would be allowed to sell the herbicide if the EPA approves it following a 30-day public comment period.
The 2,4-D chemical, combined with glyphosate, makes up the herbicide Enlist Duo. 2,4-D also makes up half of the toxic mix in the now infamous 'Agent Orange,' used by the United States during the Vietnam War, which is thought to have resulted in the deaths of an estimated 400,000 people and birth defects in 500,000 others.
Dow’s genetically-engineered corn and soybeans – known as Enlist – have received preliminary approval from the US Department of Agriculture. Should Enlist crops win ultimate authorization, the USDA said that would increase the annual use of 2,4-D (2,4-dichlorophenoxyacetic acid) in the United States from 26 million pounds per year to possibly 176 million pounds.
The crops are designed to withstand high doses of glyphosate – brought to market by biotech giant Monsanto as their Roundup weed killer – and 2,4-D. Dow’s corn and soybeans thus earned the derogatory name 'Agent Orange' crops by opponents of both the highly-toxic chemical mix and the controversial use of genetically-modified organisms (GMOs) in large-scale agriculture.

Read More Here
.....

Related articles

• EPA advances approval of powerful weed killer for Dow's 'Agent Orange' GMO crops
• New Generation of Genetically Engineered Crops Found to Drastically Increase Use of Toxic Pesticides
• U.S. Nearing Approval of Next Generation of Herbicide-

USDA: Selling Out Organic to Protect Five Factory Farms

Bruce Friedrich 

Senior Policy Director, Farm Sanctuary

Posted: 04/02/2014 9:55 am EDT Updated: 04/02/2014 5:59 pm EDT

ASSOCIATED PRESS

When most Americans think about organic meat or eggs, they picture animals on small farms, allowed to root in the soil, feel sun on their backs, and engage in their natural behaviors. What they don't picture is tens of thousands of hens crammed into massive sheds with no access to soil and extremely limited outdoor access.
Unfortunately, the USDA stamped its seal of approval on the latter scenario by refusing to implement its own advisory board's animal welfare recommendations, which would have created a level playing field for the hundreds of small organic farms that were the basis for the standards. These recommendations would not have required "good" conditions, but they would have set a reasonable floor by requiring improvements from the five massive "organic" egg farms that provide the worst hen welfare.
The USDA's decision doesn't just violate our moral intuitions and the expectations of organic consumers; it also violates the Department's legal mandate in at least two distinct ways.
First, USDA is statutorily required "to establish national [organic guidelines that] meet a consistent standard." In 2005 and again in 2010, USDA's Office of the Inspector General (OIG) found that animal welfare standards were applied inconsistently, in violation of the Act's legal requirement that USDA ensure "that [organic] products meet consistent, uniform standards."
By requiring improvements from the five mega-farms such that their hen welfare standards would align with that of the hundreds of smaller farms, adopting the advisory board's recommendations would create this statutorily-mandated consistency. Ignoring those recommendations places USDA in violation of its legal mandate.

Read More Here

Related articles

• Organic sellout: USDA guts organic rules to protect mega-farms
• Organic Sellout: USDA Guts Organic Rules To Protect Mega-Farms

Meet The Farmer: GMOs

Part 1

freespeechtv

 

Part 2

Part 3

****************************************************

GMO Corn Farmers are Losing Land, Swimming in Debt Says New Research

by Christina Sarich
October 2nd, 2013
Updated 10/02/2013 at 2:15 am

If you’ve wanted to look at GMOs purely from the financial bottom line, then this news should make you think twice about Biotech’s promises of better farming and better business. If GMOs really produced a higher yield and feed more hungry people, then why are GMO corn farmers losing land and pushing through debt?
GMO corn farmers are suffering primarily due to Bt-corn. Bt stands for Bacillus thuringiensis; it is the donor organism for genetically modified plants that are supposedly resistant to Round Up Ready chemicals, used profusely by Monsanto. There have been invasions of Bt-corn into organic crops, but this isn’t the issue in a purely financial assessment of GMOs.
GMO-free advocate, Farmer-Scientist Partnership for Development has just released a book which explains the adverse effects of GMO-corn on farmers and shows ‘evidence of failure’ of what was supposed to have given farmers increased yields and better income. They are calling GMO a ‘vicious cycle of poverty’. Farmers all over the world are finding themselves with poor harvests and lack-luster incomes.

Read More Here


****************************************************

Now Farmers, not Biotech Giants, Being Blamed for GMO-Spawned Superbugs

Melissa Melton
The Daily Sheeple
October 7th, 2013

Major studies have illustrated the negative impacts of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) on the environment and everything in it again and again.
In the 16-year period between 1996, when GMOs were introduced, to 2011, pesticide use that was supposed to decrease due to genetic modification actually increased by 404 million pounds. Superbugs and superweeds that did not exist before are threatening crops and taking over the land. Independent studies continue to confirm this vast increase in widespread pesticide use is also killing America’s honeybees. Comparative studies have even shown that GMO food is nutritionally void and toxic; some 65 health risks have been associated with GMO in independent studies. The list goes on and on.
Over at The Motley Fool.com, however, biotech giants like Monsanto, BASF, Dow and Syngenta can seemingly do no wrong. In fact, the site has declared that hating Monsanto actually impedes global economic growth. Seems sadly true at this point; with 3 billion acres of GMO grown in 29 countries in 2011, it’s everywhere and getting harder and harder to avoid all the time. In addition to companies like Monsanto selling patented seeds and suing anyone who tries to reuse them season to season or who might find their fields unknowingly tainted by them, GMO has been found to continually require more and more pesticides year after year as pests become resistant.
Now Motley Fool is arguing that farmers may be to blame for superpests:

“A study conducted earlier this summer by the University of Arizona discovered that five of the 13 major agricultural pests had developed resistance to genetically modified crops. It is important to note that each case of resistance was highly localized.”

Even though it’s another study proving GMO causes these problems, the author continues:

“Don’t let a study’s conclusion get in the way of the chance to publish more headlines that report the failures of biotechnology and jump on GM seed companies such as Monsanto, Syngenta, Dow Chemical, and DuPont.”

See, the argument is that superbugs are all the farmers’ faults because farmers aren’t dutifully planting their refuge plots — an area of non-GMO within their GMO fields:

Read More Here

****************************************************

Related articles

• Christina Sarich - GMO Corn Farmers are Losing Land, Swimming in Debt Says New Research
• October is Non-GMO month
• GMO corn farmers in debt
• Now Farmers, not Biotech Giants, Being Blamed for GMO-Spawned Superbugs
• Now Farmers, not Biotech Giants, Being Blamed for GMO-Spawned Superbugs