Hawaii passes bill forbidding biotechnology companies, GMOs

Legislation outlawing all future plantings of genetically-modified organisms (GMOs) as well as the very companies that manufacture and spread them has become law on Hawaii's "Big Island" following the historic passage of Bill 113. According to reports, the new law prohibits biotechnology companies like Monsanto and Dow from further experimenting with GMO crops and seeds on the Big Island, and also forbids any new GMOs from being cultivated there.

The Honolulu Civil Beat reports that the Hawaii County Council voted 6-3 to pass the momentous bill, which contains only one exemption for GM papayas that have been grown in Hawaii since the late 1990s. All other GMOs, including the latest incarnations of Roundup Ready soybeans and Bt corn, for instance, will have to make their homes elsewhere, as residents of the Big Island have made their voices overwhelmingly heard on the issue.

"Forcing genes of one species into another and changing the DNA of plants is not natural," stated one local resident by the name of Helene Love. "[GMOs] could turn out to be a huge danger, similar to nuclear disasters of our planet that we can't put out."

Some might say this suggestion is a bit dramatic, but the truth of the matter is that the long-term adverse effects of GMOs on the environment and human health are largely unknown. It is also undeniable that, once released, GMOs can never again be contained, as their pollen and other components will continue to indiscriminately spread and contaminate other plants and food crops.

"Even the worst chemical pollution diminishes over time as the pollutant is degraded by physical and biological mechanisms.," explains the comprehensive Earth Open Source research study GMO Myths and Truths. "But GMOs are living organisms. Once released into the ecosystem, they do not degrade and cannot be recalled, but multiply in the environment and pass on their GM genes to future generations."

Big Island mayor fully endorses Bill 113; says it will help protect his community's agricultural heritage

Big Island Mayor Billy Kenoi was also supportive of the bill, telling reporters that it fully embodies the sentiments of his local community. Rather than continue to allow large biotech corporations to rob the people of their agricultural heritage, Bill 113 encourages community-based farming and ranching rather than chemical-based factory agriculture.

"Our community has a deep connection and respect for our land, and we all understand we must protect our island and preserve our precious natural resources," wrote Kenoi to the councilmen. "We are determined to do what is right for the land because this place is unlike any other in the world."

The Hawaiian island of Kauai is also considering similar legislation in the form of Bill 2491, which rather than implement a full-on GMO ban would merely increase the standards for GMO approval. According to Civil Beat, Bill 2491, which is expected to be very soon submitted by councilwoman Elle Cochran to the Maui City Council, would require biotech corporations to disclose details about pesticide use and report all experimental and commercial GMOs to authorities.

"The bill requires commercial agricultural companies that use more than 5 pounds or 15 gallons of restricted use pesticides to disclose what chemicals they spray, where and in what quantities," explains a recent new report on the upcoming bill. "The bill would apply to all of Maui County -- including the island of Molokai where both Monsanto and Dow AgroSciences operate."

Source: NaturalNews

How Roundup Weedkiller Can Promote Cancer, New Study Reveals

Roundup herbicide (glyphosate) is in our air, rain, groundwater, soil and most food in the U.S., and an increasing body of research reveals it has cancer-promoting properties.

Researchers from the Indian Institute of Toxicology Research have recently confirmed the carcinogenic potential of Roundup herbicide using human skin cells (HaCaT ) exposed to extremely low concentrations of the world's best selling herbicide.

The researchers previously reported on glyphosate's tumor promoting potential in a two-stage mouse skin carcinogenesis model[i] through its disruption of proteins that regulate calcium (Ca^2+- ) signaling and oxidative stress (SOD 1), but were unable in these investigations to identify the exact molecular mechanisms behind how glyphosate contributes to tumor promotion.

The new study, published in the peer-reviewed journal ISRN Dermatology,[ii] sought out to clarify the exact mode of tumorigenic action, finding the likely mechanism behind glyphosate's cancer promoting properties is through the downregulation of mitochondrial apoptotic (self-destructive) signaling pathways, as well as through the disruption of a wide range of cell signaling and regulatory components. Cell proliferative effects were induced by concentrations lower than .1 mM, and as low as 0.01 mM, which is four orders of magnitude lower than concentrations commonly used in GM agricultural applications (e.g. 50 mM). The fact that lower concentrations were more effective at inducing proliferation than higher concentrations (which suppressed cell growth), indicates that Roundup is a potent endocrine disrupter, and further highlights why conventional toxicological risk assessments are inadequate because they do not account for the fact that as concentrations arereduced certain types of toxicity -- e.g. endocrine disruption -- actually increase.

The researchers used the product Roundup Original (glyphosate 41%, polyethoxethyleneamine (POEA) ≅15%—Monsanto Company, St. Louis, MO, USA), and observed the following changes to human skin cells induced through exposure to this chemical mixture:

·         Significant increases in cell proliferation (via disruption of CA2+ levels, i.e. decreased levels)

·         Increases oxidative stress, as measured by levels of ROS (reactive oxygen species)

·         Cell-cycle dysregulation, marked by an accumulation of cells in S-phase (hallmark feature of cancer)

·         Increased proliferating cell nuclear antigen (PCNA), a marker for increased cell proliferation

·         Increased Bromodeoxyuridin (BrdU), a marker for increased cell proliferation

·         Decreases in the level of the protein IP3R1, an indication of resistance to cell death

·         Increases in Bcl-2 protein, a tumor promoter gene product

·         Decreases in Bax proteins, a tumor suppressor gene product

·         Caspase suppression (associated with prevention of cell death)

·         Changes in the expression of the Ca2+- binding family of proteins (S100 family) S100A6/S100A9, associated with various cancers.

It is important to emphasize that while the researchers observed cell proliferation-associated changes in the expression of the Ca2+- binding proteins S100A6/A9 following glyphosate exposure to human skin cells, the implications of these findings reach beyond the skin cell lineage. They explained that related modifications of the expression pattern of S100A6/A9 protein have also been found in "hepatocellular carcinoma [15], lung cancer [16], colorectal cancer [17], and melanoma [18]."

The study included a diagram (shown below) representing graphically the multiple ways in which glyphosate disrupts cellular structure/function to contribute to uncontrolled cell proliferation.

The researchers summarized their findings as follows:

In conclusion, in this study, we demonstrated that glyphosate may possibly exert proliferative effect in HaCaT cells by activating Ca2+ binding proteins to promote the imbalance of intracellular Ca2+ homeostasis and lessen SOD1 to increase ROS generation. This effect was partially reversed by treatment with antioxidant NAC indicating connections between oxidative stress and hypocalcaemia. Reduced Ca2+ levels enhance Bcl-2 and decrease Bax, subsequently leading to decrease in cytochrome c to stimulate further decrease of caspase 3 via the downregulation of IP3R1 level, thus halting apoptosis. The present study for the first time provides insight into the mechanism of glyphosate-induced neoplastic potential in mammalian skin system.

It should be noted that their observation that the carcinogenicity of Roundup may be suppressed by the antioxidant n-acetyl-cysteine (NAC), which is a precursor to the cellular detoxifier and antioxidant known as glutathione and a readily available dietary supplement, has important implications, owing to how widespread exposure to Roundup herbicide has become, both through environmental exposures in air, soil, rain and groundwater, as well as in the tens of thousands of unlabeled products containing GM ingredients contaminated with physiologically significant levels of this chemical. 

Reflecting on the Implications

We leave the reader with some final reflections on the implications of this research. The wholesale dismissal of attempts to differentiate GMO from conventional products through accurate labeling is based on the idea that they are 'substantially equivalent.' But, this fallacious approach is based on the mistaken view that the only difference between GMO and non-GMO crops of feed and food importance is the presence of either the novel transgenes inserted into them or their novel transgene protein products.

The discover of Roundup's extreme toxicity destroys that argument, and calls into question the credibility of any would-be 'scientist' or pro-GMO advocate who would propose otherwise.  How so? The fact is that the majority of approved GM plants have been genetically engineered to be "Roundup Ready," i.e. resistant to glyphosate, which means that the land they are grown upon is basically carpet-bombed with the chemical mixture to kill any living plant other than the glyphosate-resistant GM monocultures. The GM plants take up glyphosate, convert some of it to a similarly toxic metabolite AMPA, and survive the chemical exposure, while maintaining residues of both chemicals post-harvest -- which ultimately means that the consumer will be exposed to these compounds through their food.

This means that if you are not consuming foods that are explicitly GM free, you are being exposed to glyphosate (and glyphosate metabolites) on a daily basis. The difference, therefore between GMO and non-GMO is vastly more significant than simply the presence or absence of novel transgenes or their proteins.  It is the difference, candidly, between being exposed (poisoned) with a chemical with likely carcinogenicity or not being exposed to it.  For a more elaborate explanation read: Extreme Toxicity of Roundup Destroys GM/non-GM 'Substantial Equivalence' Argument.

Lastly, consider if Roundup (glyphosate) 'weed-killer' bore a warning sign 'may cause cancer,' or the tens thousands of products made with GM ingredients contaminated with it. Would there be any justifiable reason to resist GMO labeling? No, to the contrary, the focus would be on banning them immediately, instead of cow-towing to the powers that be to allow us the choice not to be poisoned by default.

Despite the so called "science" and "reason" based GMO proponents who think it makes sense to have mattresses labeled, but not food you put into your body, the actual empirical, peer-reviewed and published research – not ghost-written or funded by biotech corporations themselves – says that this omnipresent herbicide has multiple models of carcinogenicity, and in concentration ranges far below agricultural application, as far down as to the parts-per-trillion range. It is time those paying lip service to the 'evidence-based' model of GMO risk assessment, and who recklessly promote the dystopian interests of biotech corporations, address the evidence itself, or stop co-opting powerful sounding terms like "Science" to justify their highly irrational and ultimately biased and self-serving perspectives on the subject.

Source: GreenMedInfo

Farmers begin suing Monsanto over genetic pollution of wheat crops

Image: www.trunews.com

(NaturalNews) The next wave of farmer backlash against Monsanto has just been unleashed by Ernest filed suit in the U.S. District Court in Wichita, Kansas, alleging that Monsanto's genetic pollution has financially damaged himself and other farmers.
Barnes, a wheat farmer in Morton County, Kansas. He

Barnes' case appears to be well supported by the facts: Last week the USDA announced the shock discovery that genetically engineered wheat strains from Monsanto's open-field experiments had escaped and spread into commercial wheat farms. Almost immediately, Japan and South Korea cancelled wheat purchase contracts from the United States, and more cancellations are expected to follow. The more countries reject U.S. wheat due to GMO contamination (genetic pollution), the lower wheat prices will plunge and the more economic damage will be felt by U.S. farmers.

Monsanto now a confirmed genetic polluter

GMO wheat (i.e. "GE wheat") has never been commercially grown in the United States... at least not on purpose. Experimental fields were approved by the USDA and planted across 16 U.S. states. Until now, it was not known that these GE wheat experiments escaped their designated field plots and began to spread as a form of self-replicating genetic pollution.

For the record, Natural News openly warned about this possibility in a 2012 article called, "Stop Out-of-Control Science." There, I wrote:

Humanity has reached a tipping point of developing technology so profound that it can destroy the human race; yet this rise of "science" has in no way been matched by a rise in consciousness or ethics. Today, science operates with total disregard for the future of life on Earth, and it scoffs at the idea of balancing scientific "progress" with caution, ethics or reasonable safeguards. Unbridled experiments like GMOs have unleashed self-replicating genetic pollution that now threatens the integrity of food crops around the world, potentially threatening the global food supply.

Those words, it turns out, were prophetic. We are now faced with precisely this situation in the U.S. agricultural sector, and farmers are starting to feel the economic losses. GMOs are just one of several areas where so-called "science" actually threatens humanity with total destruction.

See my infographic of all 12 dangerous sectors of science with this infographic:
http://www.naturalnews.com/Infographic-SOS-Stop-Out-of-Control-Science.html

Monsanto engaged in genetic contamination

As Yahoo News reports:

The petition filed by Barnes claims Monsanto knew there was a high risk the genetically modified wheat it was testing could contaminate other varieties of wheat, and the company failed to follow proper procedures to keep the wheat contained.

Monsanto tested the wheat in many states, including Kansas, the top U.S. wheat-producing state, but did not disclose to farmers in those states that it was testing the controversial wheat there, the petition states.

Monsanto to sue the farmers?

Monsanto claims it will mount a "vigorous defense" against the lawsuit, expressing that it takes no responsibility whatsoever for all the genetic pollution it spews across America's farm lands. If Monsanto's genetically modified, toxin-producing crops just happen to infect your commercial crops, then that's your fault!

In fact, I'm surprised Monsanto hasn't announced plans to sue all these farmers for "stealing" its "intellectual property." That's what the company has done before, of course: sued farmers whose fields were contaminated by Monsanto's genetic pollutants.

Is this not the height of corporate evil? When British Petroleum spills billions of gallons of oil in the Gulf of Mexico, it at least pretends to be sorry about it. But when Monsanto spews its genetic pollution all over the planet, it blames the farmers! It would be like if BP drove an oil tanker right into your front yard, dumped a thousand gallons of oil on your lawn, then sued you for stealing their oil.

That's the Monsanto model. And it's yet another example of the total runaway criminality of this evil corporation that frankly should have its corporate charter yanked. This is one business that deserves to be permanently put out of business and never allowed to operate again. When corporations become such arrogant, destructive and threatening monsters that stomp on our farmers and spew their genetic jizz all across the planet like a bunch of sicko ag perverts, something has gone terribly wrong and needs to be stopped.

The recent March Against Monsanto was only the beginning. I even foresee a day when millions of citizens from around the world engage in a far more aggressive march on the Monsanto headquarters and literally tear the place apart brick by brick until this corporate demon is permanently excised from our planet.

We are winning the war against Monsanto

I also predict -- but do not condone this violence -- that if Monsanto continues to engage in its crimes against farmers, nature and humanity, we are going to start seeing well-planned "acts of justice" against Monsanto executives, employees and scientists. I literally had a bizarre, disturbing dream the other night where a band of activists had kidnapped a Monsanto executive, tied him to a chair, and forced him to admit to all the crimes Monsanto has committed while being filmed on camera. The videos were then released on the internet. I realize this sounds a lot like the plot of a major motion picture, but I believe this could become reality if Monsanto continues on its current path.

Again, for the record, I do not condone the kidnapping of Monsanto executives. Kidnappings and executions are no way to resolve problems in a civilized society. If such an act actually takes place, it would actually hurt the anti-GMO movement and allow the government to paint all GMO protesters as "potential terrorists." So if anyone out there is actually thinking of doing this, please redirect your energy and focus into non-violent protests and other similar actions that are already making tremendous progress. As I said recently on Natural News, I believe we have reached a tipping point of success against Monsanto. Let's continue to pressure Monsanto in a grassroots, non-violent way, okay?

After all, we are winning this war against Monsanto and GMOs. They are in full retreat and completely surrounded... by the truth.

Source: naturalnews.com

GMO Labeling Defeated in Washington by Monsanto Funny Money

Natural Cures Not Medicine

Image: rt.com

GMO labeling, once again, was defeated not by informed voters, but by millions of dollars worth of negative ads bought and paid for by Monsanto & company.

via Liberty Beat:

"In a closely fought battle, voters in Washington state have decided not to label Genetically Modified Foods. Initiative 522 appears to have lost by a margin of 45% in favor of labeling and 55% against. In early September, polls showed support for labeling to be ahead by 45%, that number quickly dwindled after a $22 million advertising campaign against the measure was launched by General Mills, Nestle, PepsiCo, Monsanto, DuPont and others."

This win for GMA, the lobbying arm of 'Big Food', comes despite a lawsuit filed over the GMA's suspected illegal political finance activities and money laundering. Acording to seattlepi.com:

"The attorney general went to court on Wednesday, saying the association gathered and spent more than $7 million in the campaign, shielding its donors and violating public disclosure laws."

The GMA is well known for it's political activities which are aimed at countering grass-roots food rights initiatives such as Washington's I-522 and California's Prop 37; where they contributed a large part of the $40+ million raised to defeat GMO labeling.

Monsanto, one of GMA's largest contributing members($4.8 million to defeat I 522 alone), has had a long history of both anti-science and anti-health stances: claiming that scientists across the globe who question GMO safety are simply conspiracy theorists for thinking Monsanto's claims that pesticides are actually good for the soil and that pesticide exposure is not bad for you, are questionable claims.

Other top donors which contributed to the false propaganda campaign, according to firedoglake.com, were:

"General Mills, Inc. ($598,819), PepsiCo, Inc.($1,620,899), Kellogg Company ($221,852), Nestlé USA, Inc. ($1,052,743) and ConAgra Foods ($285,281)"

The GMA, 'Big Food' and the bio-giants may have won the battle for now, but the war is far from over. Many activists are likely to double their efforts after being beaten by corporate cash and political corruption, just as we saw the March Against Monsanto movement gain momentum from Prop 37's corporately funded defeat, this is only the beginning in the fight for our right to know if it's GMO.

The Monarch Butterflies are Being Decimated by Monsanto

by Lauren McCauley | Common Dreams

Image: 

The migratory population of the monarch butterfly has reached an “ominous” low, researchers in Mexico announced Wednesday.

Scientists are attributing the decline of this essential pollinating population to the ongoing drought and the “explosive” increase in the use of genetically modified crops in the American corn belt.

“Because farmers have planted over 120 million acres of crops resistant to the milkweed-killing herbicide glyphosate, the monarchs’ essential food supply has been all but destroyed.”

Released by the Mexican government along with the World Wildlife Fund (WWF), a recent survey found a 59% decrease in the area occupied by monarch colonies wintering in the forests of central Mexico, the Los Angeles Times reports.

Because of the difficulty in counting butterflies, scientists rely on measurements of the area that butterflies occupy to estimate their numbers; 1 hectare may contain as many as 50 million butterflies.

“The report of the dwindling Monarch butterfly winter residence in Mexico is ominous,” said leading entomologist Lincoln Brower.

According to Chip Taylor, director of the conservation group Monarch Watch at the University of Kansas, the decline was “hastened” by North America’s ongoing drought and record-breaking heat

However, the more “alarming” source of decline, according to Taylor and Omar Vidal, head of WWF in Mexico, is the “explosive increase” in the use of herbicide-tolerant genetically modified soybean and corn crops across America’s farmland which, the New York Times reports, has “enabled farmers to wipe out the milkweed,” on which monarch larvae feed almost exclusively.

“The American Midwest’s corn belt is a critical feeding ground for monarchs, which once found a ready source of milkweed growing between the rows of millions of acres of soybean and corn,” they continue. However, as farmers have planted over 120 million acres of crops resistant to the milkweed-killing herbicide glyphosate, the monarchs’ essential food supply is all but destroyed.

“That habitat is virtually gone. We’ve lost well over 120 million acres, and probably closer to 150 million acres,” Mr. Taylor said.

Previously, environmental groups cited logging in Mexico’s forests, the butterfly’s winter habitat, as the primary threat to the population. Since the area was declared a nature reserve in 2000, that is now considered a lesser threat.

“The conservation of the Monarch butterfly is a shared responsibility between Mexico, the United States and Canada,” said Vidal. “By protecting the reserves and having practically eliminated large-scale illegal logging, Mexico has done its part. It is now necessary for the United States and Canada to do their part and protect the butterflies’ habitat in their territories.”

Like bees, butterflies provide essential pollinating functions for entire ecosystems.”The fruits, nuts, seeds and foliage that everything else feeds on,” said Taylor. “If we pull the monarchs out of the system, we’re really pulling the rug out from under a whole lot of other species.”

According to Nature World News, the Monarch butterflies begin life as an egg that hatch into larvae (which feed almost exclusively on the milkweed plant). These larvae become caterpillars and in the fourth stage they become butterflies. Only Monarchs born between late summer and early fall make the migration. Even though it takes about four generations of the Monarchs to make the incredible journey, each butterfly knows the way and at times, these butterflies have been found to come back to the same tree from where their great grandparents had begun the journey.
“This is one of the world’s great migrations. It would be a shame to lose it.”

Source: Common Dreams via RealFarmacy.com

BREAKING: There is a Growing Scientific Consensus on GMO Safety Fears

Image: thoughtshaker.com

The number of scientists, physicians and legal experts who have signed the group statement, “No scientific consensus on GMO safety” has climbed to 231 in just over a week – and it’s still growing.

The number of initial signatories stood at almost 100 on the day the statement was released, 21 October. It has more than doubled since.

A recent signatory is Dr Belinda Martineau, former member of the Michelmore Lab at the UC Davis Genome Center, University of California, who helped commercialise the world’s first GM whole food, the Flavr Savr tomato. Dr Martineau said:

“I wholeheartedly support this thorough, thoughtful and professional statement describing the lack of scientific consensus on the safety of genetically engineered (GM) crops and other GM organisms (also referred to as GMOs). Society’s debate over how best to utilize the powerful technology of genetic engineering is clearly not over. For its supporters to assume it is, is little more than wishful thinking.”
Another signatory, Dr Judy Carman, director of the Institute of Health and Environmental Research, Adelaide, and adjunct associate professor, health and the environment, Flinders University, South Australia, said:

“Of the hundreds of different GM crops that have been approved for human and animal consumption somewhere in the world, few have been thoroughly safety tested. So it is not possible to have a consensus that they are all safe to eat – at least, not a consensus based on hard scientific evidence derived from experimental data.”

A third signatory, Prof Elena Alvarez-Buyllla, coordinator of the Laboratory of Molecular Genetics of Plant Development and Evolution, Institute of Ecology, UNAM, Mexico, said:

“Given the scientific evidence at hand, sweeping claims that GM crops are substantially equivalent to, and as safe as, non-GM crops are not justifiable.

“We must be especially cautious in the case of proposed release of a GM crop in the centre of genetic origin for that crop. An example is the planting of GM maize in Mexico. Mexico is the centre of genetic origin for maize. GM genes can irreversibly contaminate the numerous native varieties which form the genetic reservoir for all future breeding of maize varieties. In addition, maize is a staple food crop for the Mexican people. So GMO releases can threaten the genetic diversity on which food security depends, both within Mexico and globally.

“Such decisions with broad implications for society should not be made by a narrow group of self-selected experts, many of whom have commercial interests in GM technology, but must also involve the millions of people who will be most affected. As things stand, in Mexico we have an ongoing uncontrolled experiment with no independent scientific or popular mandate, in which GM genes are allowed to crossbreed with native maize varieties. The inevitable result will be genetic alterations with unpredictable effects.”

A fourth signatory, Dr Joachim H. Spangenberg, faculty member at the UFZ Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research, Leipzig, Germany, said:

“Researchers in ecology and relevant environmental sciences have predicted negative environmental impacts from GM crops for around 25 years. Over the years, many of these impacts have been empirically documented. One example is the development of pest resistance to GM Bt insecticidal crops and weed resistance to the required herbicides for GM herbicide-tolerant crops. These resistance problems are now an increasing problem for farmers – to the benefit of the GM seed and agrochemical corporations – and are forcing farmers back to older, even more toxic chemical pesticides.

“Twenty years ago, the international academic associations of ecologists and molecular biologists met at the International Council for Science.  The two groups agreed that their fields of expertise were complementary and that they needed to cooperate in order to assess the ecological impacts of GM crops in a systematic way. However, many molecular biologists involved in GM crop development today persistently ignore their own blind spots and the science emerging from the complementary environmental segments of the science community, turning the application of GM technology into a social risk.”

Source: sustainablepulse.com via rawforbeauty.com

Sign this petition to ban all bee killing pesticides!

Image: facebook.com/gardenofeating

A shocking 31% of America's honeybees died over the winter and this has been happening for the past 7 years. We're speeding towards the disastrous point at which we will not have enough bees to pollinate our crops.

Related: Insecticides to blame for massive bee die-off in Minneapolis

Neonicotinoid pesticides are known to cause bee deaths yet the EPA continues to approve their usage despite warnings from their own scientists. In fact, the EPA has just approved, Sulfoxaflor, yet another pesticide that is known to be highly toxic to bees.

In contrast, the European Union just banned this entire class of pesticides in an effort to protect its dwindling honey bee populations. The U.S. needs to follow Europe's lead, and fast!

We're almost to the goal!

Sign the petition here:http://www.change.org/petitions/epa-ban-bee-killing-pesticides-now

Study: Can organic agriculture feed the world better than GMOs?

For years now, the most-asked question by detractors of the good food movement has been, “Can organic agriculture feed the world?” According to a new United Nations report, the answer is a big, fat yes.

The report, Agro-ecology and the Right to Food, reveals that small-scale sustainable farming would even double food production within five to 10 years in places where most hungry people on the planet live.

Image: organicwins.com

“We won’t solve hunger and stop climate change with industrial farming on large plantations,” Olivier De Schutter, UN Special Rapporteur on the right to food and author of the report, said in a press release. “The solution lies in supporting small-scale farmers’ knowledge and experimentation, and in raising incomes of smallholders so as to contribute to rural development.”

The report suggests moving away from the overuse of oil in farming, a problem that is magnified in the face of rising prices due to unrest in the Middle East. The focus is instead on agroecology, or eco-farming. “Agroecology seeks to improve the sustainability of agroecosystems by mimicking nature instead of industry,” reads a section.

The report shows that these practices raise productivity significantly, reduce rural poverty, increase genetic diversity, improve nutrition in local populations, serve to build a resilient food system in the face of climate change, utilize fewer and more locally available resources, empower farmers and create jobs.

Of 57 impoverished countries surveyed, for example, yields had increased by an average of nearly 80 percent when farmers used methods such as placing weed-eating ducks in rice patties in Bangladesh or planting desmodium, which repels insects, in Kenyan cornfields. These practices were also cost effective, locally available and resulted from farmers working to pass on this knowledge to each other in their communities.

While the report admits that agroecology can be more labor-intensive because of the complexity of knowledge required, it shows that this is usually a short-term issue. The report underscores that agroecology creates more jobs over the long term answering critics who argue that creating more jobs in agriculture is counter-productive. “Creation of employment in rural areas in developing countries, where underemployment is currently massive, and demographic growth remains high,” states the report, “may constitute an advantage rather than a liability and may slow down rural-urban migration.”

Mark Bittman put it aptly in his column on the UN report at the New York Times, saying:

Agro-ecology and related methods are going to require resources too, but they’re more in the form of labor, both intellectual—much research remains to be done—and physical: the world will need more farmers, and quite possibly less mechanization.

This is not the first time such a report has declared more productive ways to feed the world other than leaving that important task to large corporations. In April 2008, the IAASTD report (the International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development)–which was supported by the World Bank, the UN Food & Agriculture Organization and the World Health Organization, among others, with the participation of over 60 world governments and 400 experts–found that not only would industrial food production not be able to feed the world in the long term, but the practices being employed are actually increasing hunger, exhausting resources and exacerbating climate change. However, the U.S., under the Bush Administration, was one of the countries that decided not to endorse the findings.

Though agroecological farming has benefits for industrialized countries too, both reports focus largely on what to do in the least-developed nations on the globe. The status quo for U.S. foreign policy in agriculture up until now has been to leverage our political muscle to force countries to except our subsidized crops, even if it meant destroying local agricultural economies. (Former President Bill Clinton apologized for this policy last year, saying that it has “failed everywhere it’s been tried,” and “we should have continued to work to make sure [Haiti] was self-sufficient in agriculture.”) Will the Obama Administration be more receptive to these findings and could there be a change in the way we work with other countries in our support for agriculture?

Looking back at this (proudly pro-business) administration’s follies in hiring a pesticide lobbyist as our Agricultural Trade Representative, maintaining the USDA in the confusing role of promoting and regulating agriculture, and focusing on “improved seeds,” which usually means funding for the development of genetically modified crops for poor countries and you might be discouraged.

But De Schutter argues that real change to improve the livelihoods of rural farmers requires governments to be on board. “States and donors have a key role to play here,” he said. “Private companies will not invest time and money in practices that cannot be rewarded by patents and which don’t open markets for chemical products or improved seeds.” In other words, feeding the worlds hungry should not be left to the market alone.

The report makes these specific recommendations for governing bodies:

making reference to agroecology and sustainable agriculture in national strategies for the realization of the right to food and by including measures adopted in the agricultural sector in national adaptation plans of action (NAPAs) and in the list of nationally appropriate mitigation actions (NAMAs) adopted by countries in their efforts to mitigate climate change; reorienting public spending in agriculture by prioritizing the provision of public goods, such as extension services, rural infrastructures and agricultural research, and by building on the complementary strengths of seeds-and-breeds and agroecological methods, allocating resources to both, and exploring the synergies, such as linking fertilizer subsidies directly to agroecological investments on the farm (“subsidy to sustainability”); supporting decentralized participatory research and the dissemination of knowledge about the best sustainable agricultural practices by relying on existing farmers’ organizations and networks, and including schemes designed specifically for women; improving the ability of producers practicing sustainable agriculture to access markets, using instruments such as public procurement, credit, farmers’ markets, and creating a supportive trade and macroeconomic framework.

The report also gives recommendations for donors seeking to decrease hunger and improve rural livelihoods and for research organizations.

You can read the full report here [PDF]

Source: civileats.com

howstuffworks.com

Over 75 Million Americans are now eating organic. Here are 10 reasons why:

Organic Consumers Association

Image: Organics.org

Organic foods and products are the fastest growing items in America’s grocery carts. Thirty million households, comprising 75 million people, are now buying organic foods, clothing, body care, supplements, pet food, and other products on a regular basis. Fifty-six percent of U.S. consumers say they prefer organic foods.

Here are 10 reasons why you should buy organic foods and products:

1. Organic foods are produced without the use of Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs). Consumers worry about untested and unlabeled genetically modified food ingredients in common supermarket items. Genetically engineered ingredients are now found in 75% of all non-organic U.S. processed foods, even in many products labeled or advertised as “natural.” In addition, the overwhelming majority of non-organic meat, dairy, and eggs are derived from animals reared on a steady diet of GM animal feed. Although polls indicate that 90% of Americans want labels on gene-altered foods, government and industry adamantly refuse to respect consumers’ right to know, understanding quite well that health and environmental-minded shoppers will avoid foods with a GMO label.

2. Organic foods are safe and pure. Organic farming prohibits the use of toxic pesticides, antibiotics, growth hormones, nano-particles, and climate-destabilizing chemical fertilizers. Consumers worry about pesticide and drug residues routinely found in non-organic produce, processed foods, and animal products. Consumer Reports has found that 77% of non-organic produce items in the average supermarket contain pesticide residues. The beef industry has acknowledged that 94% of all U.S. beef cattle have hormone implants, which are banned in Europe as a cancer hazard. Approximately 10% of all U.S. dairy cows are injected with Monsanto and Elanco’s controversial genetically engineered Bovine Growth Hormone, banned in most industrialized nations. Recent studies indicate that an alarming percentage of non-organic U.S. meat contains dangerous antibiotic-resistant bacteria.

3. Organic foods and farming are climate-friendly. Citizens are increasingly concerned about climate-destabilizing greenhouse gas pollution (CO2, methane, and nitrous oxide), 35-50% of which in North America comes from our energy-intensive, chemical-intensive food and farming system. Organic farms and ranches, on the other hand, use far less fossil fuel and can safely sequester large amounts of CO2 in the soil (up to 7,000 pounds of CO2 per acre per year, every year.) Twenty-four billion pounds of chemical fertilizers applied on non-organic farms in the U.S. every year not only pollute our drinking water and create enormous dead zones in the oceans; but also release enormous amounts of nitrous oxide, a super potent, climate-destabilizing greenhouse gas.

4. Organic food certification prohibits nuclear irradiation. Consumers are justifiably alarmed about irradiating food with nuclear waste or electron beams, which destroy vitamins and nutrients and produce cancer-causing chemicals such as benzene and formaldehyde. The nuclear industry, large food processors, and slaughterhouses continue to lobby Congress to remove required labels from irradiated foods and replace these with misleading labels that use the term “cold pasteurization.” The USDA and large meat companies have promoted the use of irradiated meat in school lunches and senior citizen facilities. Many non-organic spices contain irradiated ingredients.

5. Consumers worry about rampant e-coli, salmonella, campylobacter, Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA), and fecal contamination in animal products coming out of the nation’s inhumane and filthy slaughterhouses. The Centers for Disease Control have admitted that up to 76 million Americans suffer from food poisoning every year. Very few cases of food poisoning have ever been linked to organic farms or food processors.

6. Consumers are concerned about billions of pounds of toxic municipal sewage sludge dumped as “fertilizer” on 140,000 of America’s chemical farms. Scientific evidence has confirmed that municipal sewage sludge contains hundreds of dangerous pathogens, toxic heavy metals, flame-retardants, endocrine disruptors, carcinogens, pharmaceutical drugs and other hazardous chemicals coming from residential drains, storm water runoff, hospitals, and industrial plants. Organic farming categorically prohibits the use of sewage sludge.

7. Consumers worry about the routine practice of grinding up slaughterhouse waste and feeding this offal and blood back to other animals, a practice that has given rise to a form of human mad-cow disease called CJD, often misdiagnosed as Alzheimer’s disease. Animals on organic farms cannot be fed slaughterhouse waste, manure, or blood – daily rations on America’s factory farms.

8. Consumers care about the humane treatment of animals. Organic farming prohibits intensive confinement and mutilation (debeaking, cutting off tails, etc.) of farm animals. In addition to the cruel and unhealthy confinement of animals on factory farms, scientists warn that these CAFOs (Confined Animal Feeding Operations) produce enormous volumes of manure and urine, which not only pollute surface and ground water, but also emit large quantities of methane, a powerful climate-destabilizing greenhouse gas.

9. Consumers are concerned about purchasing foods with high nutritional value. Organic foods are nutritionally dense compared to foods produced with toxic chemicals, chemical fertilizers, and GMO seeds. Studies show that organic foods contain more vitamins, cancer-fighting anti-oxidants, and important trace minerals.

10. Consumers care about preserving America’s family farms, world hunger, and the plight of the world’s two billion small farmers. Just about the only small farmers who stand a chance of making decent living these days are organic farmers, who get a better price for their products. In addition study after study has shown that small organic farms in the developing world produce twice as much food per acre as chemical and GMO farms, while using far less fossil fuel and sequestering large amounts of excess CO2 in the soil. Yields on organic farms in the industrialized world are comparable to the yields on chemical and GMO farms, with the important qualification that organic farms far out-produce chemical farms under extreme weather conditions of drought or torrential rains. Of course, given accelerated climate change, extreme weather is fast becoming the norm.

For all these reasons, millions of American consumers are turning to organic foods and other organic items, including clothing and body care products – part of an overall movement toward healthy living, preserving the environment, and reversing global warming.

Source: Organic Consumers Association & RealFarmacy.com

Los Angeles may become largest GMO-free area in the US

via RT.com

A Los Angeles March Against Monsanto protester
 making his sign. Image: AFB

Los Angeles City Councilmen Paul Koretz and Mitch O’Farrell introduced Friday a motion to curb growth proliferation of GMO seeds and plants within the city. The councilmen said the proposal aims to protect local gardens and city-grown food from future contamination from GMO seeds. The motion would not impact the sale of food containing GMO ingredients, however.

GMO seeds are mostly used only by large-scale farming operations, of which none exists in Los Angeles city.


"The pending ordinance would be symbolic more than anything else, but we do feel it's an important step to have the second-largest city in the nation declare itself as against genetically modified seeds," said head of Learning Garden and Seed Library of LA David King, who assisted in creating the motion.

King told The Huffington Post that if GMO seeds begin to be marketed to smaller farmers, the ban would be in place to protect home-grown food.

O’Farrell said suspicions that powerful new pesticides - incorporated into plant DNA via genetic engineering - have devastated worldwide honeybee populations by 40 to 50 percent in 2012 is the“canary in the coal mine” for GMOs. California’s almond crop, which supplies 80 percent of US almonds, has fallen on tough times given almonds rely so much on bees.


“A growing number of problems are being traced to GMOs," Koretz said in a statement. He cited examples like "the evolution of 'superbug' insects which are growing immune to the pesticides engineered within GMO crops" and "'seed drift' (for example the recent finding of GMO-pollinated wheat growing in an Oregon farmer’s field)."

Some smaller US localities have banned the cultivation of GMOs, but LA would be by far the biggest US city to do so.

Genetic engineering on plants, for example, occurs when a gene from another plant species, bacterium or virus is inserted into the organism's DNA.

An international group of over 90 scientists, academics and physicians released a statement early this week saying there is no scientific consensus on the safety of GMOs for humans, as proponents likeMonsanto attest, and that any GMO cultivation should take internationally-approved precautions.


“The claim that it does exist is misleading and misrepresents the currently available scientific evidence and the broad diversity of opinion among scientists on this issue,” the statement said.
“Moreover, the claim encourages a climate of complacency that could lead to a lack of regulatory and scientific rigour and appropriate caution, potentially endangering the health of humans, animals, and the environment.”

A public effort to require all GMO foods and seeds to be labeled as such throughout the entire state of California failed a year ago. Opponents of Proposition 37 - like Monsanto and Kraft - helped donate around $46 million to the cause against labeling. Supporters of labeling raised just over $9 million in that defeat.
Voters in Washington State will consider a labeling requirement next month. Opponents of Initiative 522 - led by questionable fundraising tactics by industry trade group Grocery Manufacturers Association - have pumped $17 million into the effort to defeat labeling. Supporters have raised over $5 million.

A lawsuit filed by the state against the GMA claimed that the group violated campaign disclosure laws, and forced it to reveal donors to its “Defense of Brands Strategic Account.”

Out of the 34 companies who doled out over $7.2 million into the initiative the top three were PepsiCo, which contributed $1.6 million, and Nestle USA, Inc. and The Coca-Cola Co., which spent over $1 million each.

Source: RT.com

Protesters Successfully Delay Monsanto Plant from Opening in Argentina

Image: rt.com

Community organisations and locals blocked off roads late on Wednesday in a new manifestation against the establishment of a Monsanto seed plant in the city of Malvinas Argentinas.

Earlier this month, a court in Córdoba province ruled that the agricultural giant could continue with the construction of the controversial plant in Malvinas Argentinas. Building had been temporarily suspended by the company due to continued protests taking place outside the plant.

In fresh demonstrations yesterday, groups of individuals blocked off portions of the A88 route in Malvinas Argentinas in front of the contested plant. In another area, around 50 people blocked off Route 9 and dozens others on Route 36.

Protesters are also demanding greater environmental protection policies. Earlier in the day, demonstrators stood in front of the provincial Ministry of Water, Environment, and Energy to demand answers from local government on alleged malpractice.

An official report was presented yesterday for alleged abuse of authority by Federico Bocco, provincial environment secretary. The complaint was brought forth by Raul Montenegro and has been passed onto the anti-corruption fiscal department for further investigation. Montenegro is the president of the Foundation in Defence of the Environment and he is accusing Bocco of irregularities in the selection process of commission members that evaluated the Monsanto plant project. Simultaneously, legislators from the Frente para la Victoria (FpV) political party asked for clarifications on the Monsanto situation to Bocco.

Due to the investigation, residents of Malvinas Argentinas asked the Ministry to annul Monsanto’s authorisation to begin construction works.

Protesters have blocked off certain routes between Malvinas Argentinas, Candonga, Barrio Inaudi, and Juarez Celman.

Source: thefreethoughtproject.com via argentinaindependent.com

It's on! Farmers begin suing Monsanto over genetic pollution of wheat crops

(NaturalNews) The next wave of farmer backlash against Monsanto has just been unleashed by Ernest Barnes, a wheat farmer in Morton County, Kansas. He filed suit this week in the U.S. District Court in Wichita, Kansas, alleging that Monsanto's genetic pollution has financially damaged himself and other farmers.

Image: rawforbeauty.com

Barnes' case appears to be well supported by the facts: Last week the USDA announced the shock discovery that genetically engineered wheat strains from Monsanto's open-field experiments had escaped and spread into commercial wheat farms. Almost immediately, Japan and South Korea cancelled wheat purchase contracts from the United States, and more cancellations are expected to follow. The more countries reject U.S. wheat due to GMO contamination (genetic pollution), the lower wheat prices will plunge and the more economic damage will be felt by U.S. farmers.

Monsanto now a confirmed genetic polluter


GMO wheat (i.e. "GE wheat") has never been commercially grown in the United States... at least not on purpose. Experimental fields were approved by the USDA and planted across 16 U.S. states. Until now, it was not known that these GE wheat experiments escaped their designated field plots and began to spread as a form of self-replicating genetic pollution.

For the record, Natural News openly warned about this possibility in a 2012 article called, "Stop Out-of-Control Science." There, I wrote:

Humanity has reached a tipping point of developing technology so profound that it can destroy the human race; yet this rise of "science" has in no way been matched by a rise in consciousness or ethics. Today, science operates with total disregard for the future of life on Earth, and it scoffs at the idea of balancing scientific "progress" with caution, ethics or reasonable safeguards. Unbridled experiments like GMOs have unleashed self-replicating genetic pollution that now threatens the integrity of food crops around the world, potentially threatening the global food supply.

Those words, it turns out, were prophetic. We are now faced with precisely this situation in the U.S. agricultural sector, and farmers are starting to feel the economic losses. GMOs are just one of several areas where so-called "science" actually threatens humanity with total destruction.

See my infographic of all 12 dangerous sectors of science with this infographic:http://www.naturalnews.com/Infographic-SOS-S...
Monsanto engaged in genetic contamination


As Yahoo News reports:The petition filed by Barnes claims Monsanto knew there was a high risk the genetically modified wheat it was testing could contaminate other varieties of wheat, and the company failed to follow proper procedures to keep the wheat contained.Monsanto tested the wheat in many states, including Kansas, the top U.S. wheat-producing state, but did not disclose to farmers in those states that it was testing the controversial wheat there, the petition states.
Monsanto to sue the farmers?


Monsanto claims it will mount a "vigorous defense" against the lawsuit, expressing that it takes no responsibility whatsoever for all the genetic pollution it spews across America's farm lands. If Monsanto's genetically modified, toxin-producing crops just happen to infect your commercial crops, then that's your fault!

In fact, I'm surprised Monsanto hasn't announced plans to sue all these farmers for "stealing" its "intellectual property." That's what the company has done before, of course: sued farmers whose fields were contaminated by Monsanto's genetic pollutants.

Is this not the height of corporate evil? When British Petroleum spills billions of gallons of oil in the Gulf of Mexico, it at least pretends to be sorry about it. But when Monsanto spews its genetic pollution all over the planet, it blames the farmers! It would be like if BP drove an oil tanker right into your front yard, dumped a thousand gallons of oil on your lawn, then sued you for stealing their oil.

That's the Monsanto model. And it's yet another example of the total runaway criminality of this evil corporation that frankly should have its corporate charter yanked. This is one business that deserves to be permanently put out of business and never allowed to operate again. When corporations become such arrogant, destructive and threatening monsters that stomp on our farmers and spew their genetic jizz all across the planet like a bunch of sicko ag perverts, something has gone terribly wrong and needs to be stopped.

The recent March Against Monsanto was only the beginning. I even foresee a day when millions of citizens from around the world engage in a far more aggressive march on the Monsanto headquarters and literally tear the place apart brick by brick until this corporate demon is permanently excised from our planet.We are winning the war against Monsanto


I also predict -- but do not condone this violence -- that if Monsanto continues to engage in its crimes against farmers, nature and humanity, we are going to start seeing well-planned "acts of justice" against Monsanto executives, employees and scientists. I literally had a bizarre, disturbing dream the other night where a band of activists had kidnapped a Monsanto executive, tied him to a chair, and forced him to admit to all the crimes Monsanto has committed while being filmed on camera. The videos were then released on the internet. I realize this sounds a lot like the plot of a major motion picture, but I believe this could become reality if Monsanto continues on its current path.

Again, for the record, I do not condone the kidnapping of Monsanto executives. Kidnappings and executions are no way to resolve problems in a civilized society. If such an act actually takes place, it would actually hurt the anti-GMO movement and allow the government to paint all GMO protesters as "potential terrorists." So if anyone out there is actually thinking of doing this, please redirect your energy and focus into non-violent protests and other similar actions that are already making tremendous progress. As I said recently on Natural News, I believe we have reached a tipping point of success against Monsanto. Let's continue to pressure Monsanto in a grassroots, non-violent way, okay?

After all, we are winning this war against Monsanto and GMOs. They are in full retreat and completely surrounded... by the truth.
Source:: naturalnews.com