UC and CSU team up on new agriculture, environment and human sciences projects

February 14, 2011

CONTACT: John Stumbos, UC Davis College of Agricultural and Environmental Sciences, (530) 754-4979, jdstumbos@ucdavis.edu

Eight teams of researchers, educators and students from the University of California and California State University have received funding for projects to produce rapid results on topics as diverse as North Coast job development, improved irrigation practices for the San Joaquin Valley, and new technology to detect, monitor and treat mastitis in dairy cows.

The eight projects, selected from 44 proposals, address high-priority issues in agriculture, natural resources, and human sciences. They are also intended to foster collaboration among California's colleges and universities. Funding for the eight projects totaled $79,000 and is provided by UC's Division of Agriculture and Natural Resources.

"These projects reflect the collaborative spirit in the UC and CSU systems and the commitment the faculty share in addressing issues of importance to Californians," said Neal Van Alfen, dean of the College of Agricultural and Environmental Sciences at UC Davis. "We developed this competitive grants program to leverage scarce resources for innovative research and to provide hands-on educational experiences for our students."

The campuses involved are those with primary responsibility for agricultural and natural resources research and education in the state: UC Davis, UC Berkeley, UC Riverside, and California State University campuses at Chico, Fresno, Humboldt, Pomona, and San Luis Obispo. The grants program, now in its second year, was designed by deans and department chairs in 2009. The awarded projects, with principal investigators, are listed below:

• Assessing technology literacy skills of minority college students – Researchers from UC Riverside and Cal Poly, Pomona will assess the extent of an information technology "literacy gap" in Hispanic and other minority college students to improve student success in higher education. (Raheja , Senanayake)
• Giant sequoia growth response to disturbance intensity – Forestry scientists from UC Berkeley and Cal Poly, San Luis Obispo will measure growth response to low, medium and high levels of disturbance (e.g., fire) to better inform managers of giant sequoia groves and to provide a unique learning opportunity for UC and CSU students (York, Sink)
• Developing a collaborative environment and community research on California’s North Coast – Researchers from Humboldt State University, UC Davis, and UC Berkeley will hold a three-day workshop in Orleans, Calif. to formulate a strategic plan for natural resource management and job development with the involvement of tribes, community organizations, and schools. (Everett, Sherman, Baker, Ballard, Romm)
• Student research internship program in nutrition – Two faculty members and two undergraduate students from Cal Poly, San Luis Obispo will participate in a 10-week nutrition internship with faculty from the Western Human Nutrition Research Center at UC Davis in summer 2011 (Reaves, Loan)
• Comparing subsurface drip and overhead mechanized irrigation systems – Researchers from Fresno State University, UC Davis and the UC Kearney Agricultural Research & Extension Center in Parlier will compare water use efficiency, weed management, and profitability of flat-planted minimum tillage cropping systems using subsurface drip and overhead mechanized irrigation systems. (Shrestha, Mitchell)
• Fecundity of navel orangeworm reared from pistachio, walnut and almond hosts – Entomologists from Chico State University and UC Davis will document the reproduction of navel orangeworm ­ a severe insect pest of almonds, pistachios, and walnuts – in field and laboratory investigations to enhance integrated pest management recommendations for growers.  (Boyd, Zalom)
• New technologies for detection, monitoring and treatment of mastitis in dairy cows – Scientists and students from Cal Poly, Pomona will team with UC Cooperative Extension in San Bernardino County, and with an industry partner to investigate the use of infrared thermography for early detection and monitoring, and pulsed electromagnetic field therapy for treatment of mastitis in dairy cows. (Murinda, Peterson, Siegel)
• Factors influencing probiotic survival in ice cream – Food scientists at UC Davis and Cal Poly, San Luis Obispo will study factors affecting the shelf life of probiotics in full-fat ice cream and determine what factors affect probiotic survival in simulated gastric digestion. (Singh, Lammert)

Reports on project outcomes are expected in December 2011.

###

MEDIA CONTACT:
DeeDee Kitterman, UC Davis College of Agricultural and Environmental Sciences, (530) 752-9484, dmkitterman@ucdavis.edu

Here are a list of seed companies that are owned by Monsanto

* Territorial Seeds
* Totally Tomato
* Vermont Bean Seed Co.
* Burpee
* Cook’s Garden
* Johnny’s Seeds
* Earl May Seed
* Gardens Alive
* Lindenberg Seeds
* Mountain Valley Seed
* Park Seed
* T&T Seeds
* Tomato Growers Supply
* Willhite Seed Co.
* Nichol’s
* Rupp
* Osborne
* Snow
* Stokes
* Jungs
* R.H. Shumway
* The Vermont Bean Seed Company
* Seeds for the World
* Seymour’s Selected Seeds
* HPS
* Roots and Rhizomes
* McClure and Zimmerman Quality Bulb Brokers
* Spring Hill Nurseries
* Breck’s Bulbs
* Audubon Workshop
* Flower of the Month Club
* Wayside Gardens
* Park Bulbs
* Park’s Countryside Garden

Iraq: After the Army comes Monsanto

Order 81 mandates that Iraq’s commercial-scale farmers must now purchase "registered” seeds. These are available through agribusiness giants like Monsanto, Cargill Corporation and the World Wide Wheat Company, but Monsanto is far and away the most significant player in the registered seed market. 

Order 81, by first forcing Iraq’s farmers to use genetically modified  seeds, and then by declaring natural seeds an infringement on Monsanto technology, will result in the sorts of tragedies seen elsewhere in the developing world.  

Order 81, mandated under the dystopian title "Plant Variety Protection,” turns the agricultural world on its head by defining indigenous crops as invasive and GM crops as uniform and stable.

The American Academy of Environmental Medicine has called for an immediate moratorium on genetically modified food.  Multiple animal studies show significant immune dysregulation, including upregulation of cytokines associated with asthma, allergy, & inflammation. Animal studies also show altered structure and function of the liver, including altered lipid & carbohydrate metabolism as well as cellular changes that could lead to accelerated aging & possibly lead to the accumulation of reactive oxygen species. Changes in the kidney, pancreas & spleen have also been documented. http://www.aaemonline.org/gmopost.html

The widespread use of glyphosate (Monsanto's RoundUp) is causing negative impacts on soil & plants as well as possibly animal & human health. These are key findings of Don Huber, emeritus professor of plant pathology, Purdue University. “ignoring potential non-target detrimental side effects of any chemical, especially used as heavily as glyphosate, may have dire consequences for agriculture such as rendering soils infertile, crops non-productive, & plants less nutritious. To do otherwise might well compromise not only agricultural sustainability, but also the health & well-being of animals & humans.”  http://www.non-gmoreport.com/articles/may10/consequenceso_widespread_glyphosate_use.php

According to the British govt's chief scientific adviser, Prof Sir John Beddington, a new study provides compelling evidence for governments to act NOW or face global famine. The report is the culmination of a 2yr study, involving 400 experts from 35 countries.  The report emphasises changes to farming, to ensure that increasing yields does not come at the expense of sustainability & to provide incentives to the agricultural sector that address malnutrition.

"Monsanto should not have to vouch for the safety of biotech food. Our interest is in selling as much of it as possible. Assuring its safety is the FDA's job." -Phil Angell, Monsanto's director of corporate communications, quoted in the New York Times, October 25, 1998 

The FDA's Michael Taylor is a lawyer who began his revolving door adventures as counsel to FDA. He then moved to King & Spalding, a private-sector law firm representing Monsanto. In 1991 he returned to the FDA as Deputy Commissioner for Policy, where he was part of the team that issued the agency's decidedly industry-friendly policy on food biotechnology & that approved the use of Monsanto's genetically engineered rGBH in dairy cows. His questionable role in these decisions led to an investigation by the federal General Accounting Office, which eventually exonerated him of all conflict-of-interest charges. In 1994, Mr. Taylor moved to USDA to become administrator of its Food Safety & Inspection Service ... After another stint in private legal practice with King & Spalding, Mr. Taylor again joined Monsanto as Vice President for Public Policy in 1998.

Jerry Crawford, an Iowa lawyer & lobbyist w/deep ties to Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack, recently registered as the Washington representative for Monsanto. Sen. Kerry, Secretary of State Clinton & Secretary Vilsack are all tight with Crawford.

Vilsack (head of the USDA & ex-Monsanto exec) is an ardent support of corn & soy based biofuels, which use as much or more fossil energy to produce them as they generate, while driving up world food prices and literally starving the poor. "If you put a label on genetically engineered food you might as well put a skull and crossbones on it." -- Norman Braksick, president of Asgrow Seed Co., a subsidiary of Monsanto, quoted in the Kansas City Star, March 7, 1994

http://nandaspropaganda.blogspot.com/
http://www.facebook.com/?ref=home#!/profile.php?id=100000076953084
http://twitter.com/#!/nandaUganda

Honey Made Near Monsanto GM Maize May Face EU Limits

By Stephanie Bodoni - Feb 9, 2011 7:54 AM PT Beekeepers with hives close to fields of Monsanto Co. genetically modified maize can’t sell their honey in the European Union without regulatory approval, an adviser to the EU’s highest court said. 

The unintentional presence in honey “even of a minute quantity of pollen” from the maize is sufficient reason to restrict its sale, Advocate General Yves Bot of the European Court of Justice said in a non-binding opinion today.

“Food containing material from a genetically modified plant, whether that material is included intentionally or not, must always be regarded as food produced” from modified plants, said Bot. The Luxembourg-based EU tribunal follows such advice most of the time. Rulings normally follow within six months of an opinion.
EU rules require prior authorization before genetically modified goods can be put on the market. The bloc’s 27 nations are split over the safety of food produced from genetically modified crops. This is slowing EU permission to grow them and has prompted complaints by the U.S. and other trade partners.
Beekeepers “have a real problem,” said Achim Willand, the lawyer for the group of producers that brought the case.

“It’s incomprehensible that the cultivation of such crops on unprotected fields is allowed,” Willand, of German law firm Gassner, Groth, Siederer & Coll, said in telephone interview.
Since the beekeepers aren’t allowed to sell their honey, their only option is to “seek damages and ask that safeguards are put in place” against the pollen from GM crops, he said.
 

Monsanto, the world’s largest seed company, received EU permission in 1998 to cultivate its MON 810 maize and the various products derived from the strain such as maize flour, starch and oil. The German State of Bavaria has a number of fields where the crop is grown for research.

Karl Heinz Bablok, one of a group of beekeepers that brought today’s case, detected traces of the crop in his honey and in the pollen he harvested from a field a few hundred meters behind his beehives.
The beekeepers have asked Bavaria to prohibit further planting close to their hives and for measures to prevent bees coming into contact with the crops.

A German court sought the EU tribunal’s guidance on the matter.

The case is C-442/09, Bablok and Others.
To contact the reporter on this story: Stephanie Bodoni in Luxembourg at sbodoni@bloomberg.net
To contact the editor responsible for this story: Anthony Aarons at aaarons@bloomberg.net

The trouble with Monsanto and GMOs — Dr. David Suzuki spells it out

From Jeremy Bloom on the Red Green and Blue blog:

Well-known geneticist and science broadcaster Dr. David Suzuki. Photo via Red Green and Blue blog.

I’ve been asked why we’re writing so much about Monsanto and genetically modified food. “It’s been tested,” they say. “It’s safe,” they say. “There’s nothing to fear. Why are you spreading disinformation?”
I’m not a geneticist. If I say “We don’t know enough about this,” I’m just one guy. So I’ll let a geneticist answer those questions.
David Suzuki is a geneticist. He’s one of the top scientists in Canada, his textbook is one of the most widely-used in the world, he’s published more than 30 books. As head of the David Suzuki Foundation, he’s both a promoter of science and a popularizer.
So when David Suzuki speaks, I listen (see the end of this article for a list of sources). And David Suzuki says,

“Because we aren’t certain about the effects of GMOs, we must consider one of the guiding principles in science, the precautionary principle. Under this principle, if a policy or action could harm human health or the environment, we must not proceed until we know for sure what the impact will be. And it is up to those proposing the action or policy to prove that it is not harmful.”

It’s complicated

One plus one equals two. That’s simple. But one gene inserted into a complex chromosome may not work in a simple, linear fashion.

Transgenic crops are not simple products like widgets, ipods or even automobiles. They are living organisms that can interact with other creatures in the environment in myriad ways. Nature is complicated. When you modify an organism at a genetic level, it shouldn’t surprise anyone that the results are also complicated, and often unexpected.
…Science does not proceed in a linear fashion the way we write up our grant applications, you know—experiment A leads to experiment B to C to a cure for cancer. So all of the supposed benefits of our manipulations are purely speculative. We don’t know how it will all turn out. And then when we create new organisms, new products, and release them in the wild, in our food, in our drugs, we simply don’t know enough to anticipate what the consequences will be.

We don’t know…

The bottom line with GMO is very simple: We simply don’t have the science lined up to make any sort of blanket reassurances that GMO is really safe. Here’s Suzuki:

I’m a geneticist. What bothers me is we have governments that are supposed to be looking out for our health, for the safety of our environment, and they’re acting like cheerleaders for this technology, which… is in its infancy and we have no idea what the technology is going to do.
…At the cutting edge of scientific research, most of our ideas are far from the mark – wrong, in need of revision, or irrelevant. That’s not a derogation of science; it’s the way science advances. We take a set of observations or data, set up a hypothesis that makes sense of them, and then we test the hypothesis. The new insights and techniques we gain from this process are interpreted tentatively and liable to change, so any rush to apply them strikes me as downright dangerous.

…Because they won’t tell us

Not only have there not been enough studies done… when studies ARE performed, outside researchers often have to pry the data out of Monsanto via Freedom of Information filings and lawsuits. That’s a big concern concern as well.

Transgenic crops are, in many ways, radically new and should be subject to the greatest of scientific scrutiny, not suppressed by proprietary concerns.
So what is the rush to apply ideas that will prove to be irrelevant or wrong? Money, of course.

Unintended consequences

The history of science is the history of the unexpected.

…History informs us that though we love technology, there are always costs, and since our knowledge of how nature works is so limited, we can’t anticipate how those costs will manifest. We only have to reflect on DDT, nuclear power, and CFCs, which were hailed as wonderful creations but whose long-term detrimental effects were only found decades after their widespread use.
…As we learned from experience with DDT, nuclear power and CFCs, we only discover the costs of new technologies after they are extensively used. We should apply the Precautionary Principle with any new technology, asking whether it is needed and then demanding proof that it is not harmful. Nowhere is this more important than in biotechnology because it enables us to tamper with the very blueprint of life.

Putting genes back in bottles

How do you clean up a potential GMO mess? You don’t.

The difference with GM food is that once the genie is out of the bottle, it will be difficult or impossible to stuff it back. If we stop using DDT and CFCs, nature may be able to undo most of the damage – even nuclear waste decays over time. But GM plants are living organisms. Once these new life forms have become established in our surroundings, they can replicate, change, and spread; there may be no turning back. Many ecologists are concerned about what this means to the balance of life on Earth that has evolved over millions of years through the natural reproduction of species.

We’re experimenting on… us

In effect, by feeding this stuff to the American population without any long-term studies, we’ve made the US one giant petri dish. Europeans – who have banned GMOs (which ought to make you wonder about safety) get to be the control group of this planet-wide experiment.

Anyone that says, “oh, we know that this is perfectly safe.” I say is either unbelievably stupid, or deliberately lying. The reality is, we don’t know. The experiments simply haven’t been done, and now we have become the guinea pigs.
…A review of the science conducted under the International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development in 2008 concluded that “there are a limited number of properly designed and independently peer-reviewed studies on human health” and that this and other observations “create concern about the adequacy of testing methodologies for commercial GM plants.”
…Some have argued that we’ve been eating GM foods for years with few observable negative consequences, but as we’ve seen with things like trans fats, if often takes a while for us to recognize the health impacts. With GM foods, concerns have been raised about possible effects on stomach bacteria and resistance to antibiotics, as well as their role in allergic reactions. We also need to understand more about their impact on other plants and animals.

…Without our consent

We have learned from painful experience that anyone entering an experiment should give informed consent. That means at the very least food should be labeled if it contains GMOs so we each can make that choice.

I am most definitely not in favour of release of GMOs in the food stream and given that it’s too late, I favour complete labelling of GMO products.

But wait, there’s more:

And that’s only the beginning. Other issues include:

• Monsanto monopolizing the seed supply for the US… and the world
• Monsanto’s GMO seeds are designed to maximize use of pesticides, as well, further impacting the environment
• Use of pesticides has already led to super-weeds that acquire resistance
• Bacteria transfer genes directly. This could lead to super-bugs with unknown consequences
• Monocultures – reliance on one crop – is bad agriculture. Reliance on a single strain could be disastrous. Biodiversity is nature’s insurance policy.
• Traditionally, farmers have saved some of their crop as seed to plant the next season. It’s the heart of sustainability. Not with Monsanto – they want you to buy new seed from them every year. Keeping some of your crop to plant next season is a violation of your contract, and farmers get sued for it.
• American farmers with access to credit can buy seed every year. But Monsanto is also pushing their product line in the developing world, destroying a 10,000-year-old system of sustainable agriculture.
• Monsanto has a history of suing farmers for “stealing” their patented genes… when they get contaminated by pollen from nearby GMO fields. And the court system has generally backed Monsanto.
• That same GMO gene contamination has already led to some farmers losing their organic certification.
• Monsanto hired the mercenary company Blackwater (now Xe) to spy on anti-GMO activists.

With all that, is it any wonder some of us have taken this irrational dislike to Monsanto?
Suzuki sources:

• True Food Foundation – Dr Suzuki Says
• More Science Needed on effects of genetically modified crops
• American Scientist – An Interview with David Suzuki
• Yes Magazine – Experimenting With Life

What can you do?

• Make a donation to the Center for Food Safety, so that they can get the USDA back into court ASAP
• Support the Non-GMO project and use the resources they provide tokeep GMO foods out of your shopping basket
• Check out the list of things you can do from the David Suzuki Foundation… and make a donation while you’re there.

Contacts:

• Tom Vilsack – USDA Alfalfa Comments Line:  301-851-2300
• President Obama  202-456-1111 (or send a written message online)
• Monstanto               314-694-1000

More on Monstanto and GMOs:

• End of Organics? Monsanto’s GMO Alfalfa Approved
• Stonyfield Farm Takes a Swing at Monsanto (And the OCA)
• Monsanto back in court: Center for Food Safety challenges GMO alfalfa ruling
• Too Much of a Bad Thing: Monsanto Did NOT Buy Blackwater
• Did Monstanto Finally Buy Blackwater? There’s No Way to Know
• Be Nice to Monsanto; They’re having a Bad Year
• Beef is the Worst: Why Put Oil On Your Barbecue?

10 Things Monsanto Does Not Want You to Know | Environment/Nature |Axisoflogic.com

10 Things Monsanto Does Not Want You to Know | Environment/Nature |Axisoflogic.com

10 Things Monsanto Does Not Want You to Know ( 10)

Print This ShareThis

By Millions Against Monsanto

Organic Consumers Association

Sunday, Feb 6, 2011

What’s wrong with Genetic Engineering?

Genetic engineeringis a radical technology that breaks down genetic barriers between humans, plants and animals. Once released, these genetically modified organisms (GMOs) can easily spread and interbreed with other organisms, and they are virtually impossible to recall back to the laboratory.

Monsanto provides roughly 90% of GMO seeds in the world. These seeds have been genetically modified to produce their own pesticide or survive repeated spraying of their toxic herbicide Roundup. Monsanto’s GMOs are not designed to increase yields to feed the world, but rather to increase Monsanto’s profits by increasing the use of chemicals such as Roundup and selling their high-priced patented seeds which farmers must buy every year.

Due to the enormous political clout of Monsanto, the American public is being denied the right to know whether their foods are genetically engineered or not. Following is a list of 10 facts about Monsanto and GMOs, and how they can adversely affect your health, local farmers, and the planet.

1 No GMO Labeling Laws in the US

Foods containing GMOs don’t have to be labeled in the US. Monsanto has fought hard to prevent labeling laws. This is alarming, since approximately 70% of processed foods in the US now contain GMO ingredients. The European Union, Japan, China, Korea, Australia, New Zealand and many other nations now require mandatory GMO labeling.

2 Lack of Adequate Safety Testing

In May 1992, Vice President Dan Quayle announced the FDA’s anti consumer right-to-know policy which stated that GMO foods need not be labeled nor safety-tested. Meanwhile, prominent scientists such as Arpad Pusztai and Gilles-Eric Seralini have publicized alarming research revealing severe damage to animals fed GMO foods.

3 Monsanto Puts Small Farmers out of Business

Percy Schmeiser is a Canadian farmer whose canola fields were contaminated with Monsanto’s Round-Up Ready Canola by pollen from a nearby GMO farm. Monsanto successfully argued in a lawsuit that Schmeiser violated their patent rights, and forced Schmeiser to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars in damages. This type of biotech bullying is happening all over North America.

4 Monsanto Products Pollute the Developing World

Monsanto’s deadly legacy includes the production of Agent Orange and DDT. Now massive aerial spraying of Roundup in Colombia is being used by the US and the Colombian government as a counter-insurgency tactic, contaminating food crops and poisoning villagers.

5 Monsanto Blocking Government Regulations

A revolving door exists between Monsanto and US regulatory and judicial bodies making key decisions. Justice Clarence Thomas, a former Monsanto lawyer, was the one who wrote the majority opinion on a key Monsanto case. Michael Taylor once worked for the FDA, later represented Monsanto as a lawyer, then returned as the FDA’s Deputy Commissioner for Policy when rBGH was granted approval.

6 Monsanto Guilty of False Advertising

France’s highest court ruled in 2009 that Monsanto had lied about the safety of its weed killer Roundup. The court confirmed an earlier judgment that Monsanto had falsely advertised its herbicide as “biodegradable”.

7 Consumers Reject Bovine Growth Hormone

In the wake of mass consumer pressure, major retailers such as Safeway, Publix, Wal-Mart, and Kroger banned store brand milk products containing Monsanto’s controversial genetically engineered hormone rBGH. Starbucks, under pressure from the OCA and our allies, has likewise banned rBGH milk.

8 GMO Crops Do Not Increase Yields

A major UN/World Bank-sponsored report compiled by 400 scientists and endorsed by 58 countries concluded that GM crops have little to offer to the challenges of poverty, hunger, and climate change. Better alternatives are available, and the report championed organic farming as the sustainable way forward for developing countries.

9 Monsanto Controls US Soy Market

In 1996, when Monsanto began selling Roundup Ready soybeans, only 2% of soybeans in the US contained their patented gene. By 2008, over 90% of soybeans in the US contained Monsanto’s gene.

10 GMO Foods May Lead to Food Allergies

In March 1999, UK researchers at the York Laboratory were alarmed to discover that reactions to soy had skyrocketed by 50% over the previous year. Genetically modified soy had recently entered the UK from US imports and the soy used in the study was largely GM.

MILLIONS AGAINST MONSANTO HERE IS WHAT YOU CAN DO * Read the latest news, join in on Action Alerts, and sign up for OCA’s free newsletter at www.OrganicConsumers.org * Buy organic foods at your local health food store, co-op or farmers’ market. * Avoid processed foods, especially those containing corn, soy, cottonseed oil and canola unless they are organically certified. * Call or send a letter to your public officials. Tell them to support labeling and safety testing of GMOs and subsidies to help family farmers make the transition to organic. * Tell the following companies to stop using and selling GMO Ingredients: Kellogg’s/Kashi • Coca-Cola Kraft/Nabisco • McDonald’s • Frito-Lay General Mills • Quaker Oats • Procter & Gamble Nestle • Safeway • Campbell Soup • Wal-Mart

Source: Organic Consumers Association

Food Prices Rising. Good For Monsanto & Syngenta.

By STEPHEN POPE

Image via Wikipedia

The Chinese Central Bank, The People’s Bank of China, (PBOC), has increased interest rates once again. This is the third increase in four months as the authorities in Beijing seek a way to contain inflation.
 PBOC announced that it would raise the 1 year lending rate to 6.06% from the previous level of 5.81% and the 1 year deposit rate to 3.0% from 2.75%.
Back in October, PBOC raised rates for the first time in nearly three years as it began doing battle with surging prices, exacerbated by the high growth rate of the domestic economy.
Data supplied by the Chinese Economic Information Bureau shows that inflation has started to rise again following a dip in 2009. Annual averages since 2007 read as: 2007 ~ 4.8%,  2008  ~ 5.9%,  2009  ~ -0.7%,  2010 ~ 3.3%.  However in Q4 2010 the average was 4.7%. Clearly the trend is above the official target of 3.0%. The Government has leaned on the PBOC and for 2011 the official target has been adjusted higher to 4.0%. This alteration in inflation policy was announced by the main economic and planning agency, the National development and Reform Commission
Clearly the pace of economic growth is a major factor as Q4 2010 economic expansion was booked at 9.8% following increases in the level of industrial production and retail sales. For all of 2010 the economy grew at a pace of 10.3%, the strongest level in 3 years and compares to 9.25 in 2009.
A Billion plus hungry mouths:
If the workers keep the economy moving, then the workers have to be fed. Food prices around the world have risen substantially this year. Rough rice slipped to $10.485/cwt on June 30^th 2010 marking a 25.95% fall from where the year began. Since then it has risen to $16.285/cwt on February 3^rd, +55.32%. One has to hope that the Head of the Chinese Statistics Bureau is being completely honest when he says that China has an abundant supply of rice. I say this because with 3 Billion people in the world using rice as their staple food and just 6 to 7% of global rice production trades on the free and open global market. The Dollar Index is inversely correlated to the price of rice to such an extent that R² is 0.98. As the Fed looks to keep rates low and the ECB is seen as an eager rate riser, so globally one can expect downward pressure on the Dollar and upward pressure on rice. That will in turn place greater strain on the nations that have many hungry mouths to feed. Of course China has a strong $ revenue stream from its exports and foreign exchange reserves have reached $199Bn in Q3 2010. So China should not face any immediate risk of civil unrest. However, if the stockpile ran too low and supplies where hard to come by, one never knows. The smallest spark can light the flame of uprising.
Of course the price of commodities has been incredible with the Reuters-Jefferies CRB Index higher by 35.35% since the low on May 25^th 2010. Recently vast tracts of productive land has been out of commission as floods hit farmland Australia, which exports its wheat and sugar cane around the world. There are fears that their priceswill continue to rise. China has not escaped a knock on effect from this as providers to end customers have passed on cost hikes from their own value chain.
In January, wholesale food costs hit the highest monthly figure on record, according to the UN’s Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO). This is a serious issue although the FAO has been quick to argue that this is not the onset of another emergency.
Why are food prices rising?
Following the 2008 peaks there were good harvests for most basic foods and that allowed prices to fall back. At the end of last year severe weather in many of the world’s biggest food exporting countries damaged supplies so pushing food prices almost 20% higher than a year earlier, according to the FAO. Flooding hit the planting season in Canada, and destroyed crops of wheat and sugar cane in Australia. Severe drought and fires ruined wheat harvests in Russia and the surrounding region during the summer, prompting Russia to impose a ban exports.
Consequently wheat production is forecast to be lower this year than in the last two given the data released by the US government.
Not all food prices have risen  as countries that are not reliant on supplies from disaster-hit exporters haven’t experienced the same price squeeze. As an example please consider maize in East Africa. Prices have backed off by 50% after outstanding harvests in 2010.
Onion prices have soared in India in the past month, following heavy rains in the west, where the majority of the supply comes from. Regional and national government has come under severe pressure to act, as onions are such an important part of the Indian diet.
OK…now let the politicians and bureaucrats blame the market speculator.
It is a great relief to hear the FAO be partially market savvy when they say that speculators trading commodities on the financial markets are not to blame for the huge rise in prices. It is a shame they had to add to this by saying they have made matters worse. One can sight as many examples as one likes, but it is the market that brings liquidity to the crops. Only through the market can buyers and sellers meet effectively and efficiently. If there is an issue with price movement, surely governments around the world should look to stop blocking the most efficient methods of growing hardy crops that can stand up to weather extremes.
Sugar production has failed to keep up with the growing demand coming from developing countries, pushing prices sharply higher.  So there should encouragement to find better methods of crop production. Not a cheap swipe at market trading.
The World Development Movement (WDM) is keen to curb this betting on prices. It is determined to impose greater regulation and restriction on the buying and selling of futures. Big mistake as prices will become artificial and allow inefficient operators to stay in place so short changing the human race in the medium to long term. 
Two companies that are set to benefit from this situation are Monsanto Co (US) and Syngenta AG (Switzerland). There are many others that one could select and at Spotlight Ideas a detailed analysis is soon to be released.  In the year todate a global index of chemical companies has gained 3.14%. In contrast Syngenta is higher by 12.21% and Monsanto 7.09%. For the American player there has been several items of constructive news as the US has approved the use of GM beet seeds this year. The US Department of Agriculture (USDA), has announced that US sugar supplies could run short this year as farmers could lose 21% of the 2011 crop if they are not able to start sowing in the spring. Farmers have the go ahead to use GM Alfalfa that was developed by Monsanto.
For Syngenta, they too have a slice of the good news it has won approval from the National Biosafety Committee to distribute to farmers in Brazil supplies of “Triple Stack Corn”. This corn is resistant to corn borer, root worm and herbicide infection.
Price wise, Monsanto needs to break over 76.05…on that move the price will book gains to 84 as a short term first objective. Monsanto has a better chart, a classical impulsive rally and once over 310.90 it will rally to 342.72.
Stephen Pope ~ MarketMind
London

GMO Contamination Prevention and Market Fairness - What will it take?

11.22.10
National Organic Coalition
www.NationalOrganicCoalition.org
GMO Contamination Prevention and Market Fairness
What Will It Take?

How do we protect organic and conventional agriculture from contamination by genetically modified
organisms (GMOs) and the inevitable market losses? What set of principles and concrete measures must
be adopted to ensure the continuation of these farming methods that have served as the foundation of
American agriculture and ensured our nation’s food security for centuries?

Before answering these questions, we must first acknowledge that the challenges we face in this regard
stem from two known facts: 1) Biological and physical movement of material derived from genetically
engineered crops is difficult and oftentimes impossible to control or recall and, 2) Domestic and global
markets demand foods with zero or near-zero levels of material derived from genetically modified
organisms. The harsh consequences of these two known facts is that planting genetically modified crops
can threaten livelihoods, affect critical food supply and demand, and it can impose an unfair financial
burden on farmers seeking to satisfy discernible markets for GMO-free products. So, what do we do?
Our goal is to identify policy outcomes that are fair, comprehensive, and that do not pit farmer against
farmer. What is at stake is the ability of American farmers to compete in national and global markets and
not risk having those markets supplied by farmers from other countries due to GMO contamination in the
US food and seed supply. Farmers who seek to avoid GMOs must not continue to be solely responsible
for contamination prevention and clean-up and/or be forced give up growing certain crops. For this to
happen, direct government intervention is needed to protect livelihoods and local economies.

We have deliberately chosen to use the phrase “GMO contamination prevention” instead of “coexistence”
to more accurately reflect a public policy framework which emphasizes that planting GMOs must not in
any way preclude the growing of organic and non-GMO conventional crops. Implicit in this framing is
the acknowledgement that preventing contamination is a two-way street. While those who seek to avoid
GMOs take reasonable precautions to avoid pollen drift and the commingling of seeds and products, their
actions may not always be enough to prevent contamination in a given circumstance. We strongly believe
that those who own, promote, and profit from GMO technology must be held responsible for the
economic and market harm their products cause.

To overcome perceptions about the lack of fairness, trust, and transparency surrounding GMOs, we
believe that basic democratic principles and values must frame the discussion of how to prevent
contamination and facilitate fair market farming systems (see box on next page). Adherence to these
principles can lead to the creation of practical government policies that directly address how to prevent
GMO contamination.

The Secretary of Agriculture possesses expansive authority under the Plant Protection Act (PPA), to
broadly assess economic, environmental, public health, agricultural, and other impacts of GMOs. USDA
can require on-going regulation of GM crops if the impacts directly or indirectly cause injury or harm to
PRINCIPLES TO DRIVE GMO CONTAMINATION PREVENTION STRATEGIES

Consumer choice – Consumers have the right to choose non-GMO food.

Consumer right to know – Consumers have the right to know where and how their food was grown.
Farmers Entrepreneurial Choice – Farmers must have the right and opportunity to grow food, feed, fiber, livestock, and fish that serve important and lucrative domestic and foreign markets.

Fairness –Personal and corporate responsibility must be upheld. If you own it and are profiting from it you are responsible for the costs associated with contamination prevention and any resultant damage from contamination.

Liability –Testing for contamination, establishing buffers, reimbursement for lost sales, loss of organic product premiums, clean-up and removal are the costs of doing business that must be borne by the GMO patent holder.

Precaution – The pre-market burden of proof of safety is on the patent holder. This includes comprehensive evaluation of health, socio-economic, and environmental impacts of GM crops and technologies.

Sustainability – Agricultural technologies and systems must be assessed for sustainability and those that facilitate further declines in family farming or erode the human and environmental foundations of American agriculture must not be allowed.

Health, Environmental and Economic Evaluation –Technologies that pose environmental, economic, and health risks should be evaluated before commercialization and tough choices must be made about whether their overall societal benefits outweigh their costs.

Parity – There must be a long-term commitment to supporting the vitality of diverse agricultural enterprises, including parity of public investment, infrastructure, marketing, technical assistance, research, and funding.
Transparency – Ongoing documentation, tracking and labeling systems must be established to monitor the movement of GMOs in the environment, seed banks, non-GMO seed stocks, and food.

Diversity – Society and agriculture will greatly benefit from the rapid reinvigoration of public cultivars and breeds to restore genetic diversity on farms, ensure greater farmer seeds/breeds choices, and to enhance national food security.

other agricultural production systems and markets. It can also assign responsibility and liability for GMO contamination prevention to the offending technology owners, where it belongs. As such, USDA authority exists to prevent GMO contamination and to compensate contaminated farmers. Now, all that is needed is the will to do so and a comprehensive plan of action.

The development of strict and long-overdue GMO regulations should specifically include at least:

Labeling of GM crops and product ingredients.

Liability assignment to the GMO patent holder.

Contamination Compensation Fund in FSA or RMA through a fee on GMO patent holders, which would provide immediate assistance to farmers pending further necessary remedies of law and equity.

Ongoing GM crop regulation and the complete elimination of deregulated GM crops.

Comprehensive, independent health, environmental, and socio-economic assessments prior to making a decision on GM crop approvals.

Prohibition on the growing of GM crops that are too promiscuous to prevent GMO contamination, such as GM alfalfa, GM sugar beets, GM corn, and GM canola.

Evaluation of food security risks associated with the concentration of any sector of our food system in the hands of a few companies or with the use of one food production technology or patented seed to the near exclusion of all others.

Establish infrastructure to prevent GMO commingling and contamination during post-harvest handling. Patent holder should be responsible for full segregation and traceability, from seed to plate.

US farmers contribute to a stable domestic economy by feeding our nation, maintaining a diverse agricultural gene pool, and by supplying differentiated markets. GMO contamination risks compromising that diversity and the competitive advantages diversity affords our farmers in national and global markets. Immediate and comprehensive government action is needed to prevent GMO contamination and to protect conventional and organic agriculture and US food security. This includes ensuring that farmers have public cultivar choices that are not genetically modified.

Take Action » Food & Water Watch

Take Action » Food & Water Watch

SNL Digital Short Pee Wee Herman 1/15 SNL (TheAudioPerv.com)

Take Action » Food & Water Watch

Take Action » Food & Water Watch

Hunger and food security: Is Africa selling the farm?

Hunger and food security: Is Africa selling the farm?

Newly identified chemicals leach into food packages, pose regulatory challenge. — Environmental Health News

Newly identified chemicals leach into food packages, pose regulatory challenge. — Environmental Health News

World Environment News - China province Hit By Worst Drought, Warning On Wheat - Planet Ark

World Environment News - China province Hit By Worst Drought, Warning On Wheat - Planet Ark

Report: Urgent action needed to avert global hunger

24 January 2011 Last updated at 06:32 ETBy Pallab Ghosh Science correspondent, BBC News

The report calls for an urgent change to food production in order to feed future generations

A UK government-commissioned study into food security has called for urgent action to avert global hunger.

The Foresight Report on Food and Farming Futures says the current system is unsustainable and will fail to end hunger unless radically redesigned.

It is the first study across a range of disciplines deemed to have put such fears on a firm analytical footing.
The report is the culmination of a two-year study, involving 400 experts from 35 countries.
According to the government's chief scientific adviser, Professor Sir John Beddington, the study provides compelling evidence for governments to act now.

The report emphasises changes to farming, to ensure that increasing yields does not come at the expense of sustainability and to provide incentives to the agricultural sector that address malnutrition.

It also recommends that the most resource-intensive types of food are curbed and that waste is minimised in food production.

"We know in the next 20 years the world population will increase to something like 8.3 billion people," he told BBC News.

"We know that urbanisation is going to be a driver and that something of the order of 65-70% of the world's population will be living in cities at that time.

"We know that the world is getting more prosperous and that the demand for basic commodities - food, water and energy - will be rising as that prosperity increases, increasing at the same time as the population."
He warned: "We have 20 years to arguably deliver something of the order of 40% more food; 30% more available fresh water and of the order of 50% more energy.

"We can't wait 20 years or 10 years indeed - this is really urgent." 

Radical changes Professor Beddington commissioned the study and was among the first to warn of "a perfect storm" of a growing population, climate change and diminishing resources for food production.
The Foresight report says that the food production system will need to be radically changed, not just to produce more food but to produce it sustainably.

"There is an urgency in taking what may be very difficult policy decisions," the authors say.
"(But) 925 million people suffer hunger and perhaps a further billion lack micronutrients. The task is difficult because the food system is working for the majority of people but those at risk of hunger have least influence on decision-making."

Professor Beddington also said he viewed the billion people who overeat and are therefore obese as another symptom of the failure of the food production system to deliver good health and well-being to the world's growing population.

The report says that "piecemeal" changes are not an option: "Nothing less is required than a redesign of the whole food system to bring sustainability to the fore."

The authors are calling for food and agriculture to move up the political agenda and be co-ordinated with efforts to tackle the impact of climate change, water and energy supplies and the loss of farm land.
They also warn that there is no "silver bullet" that will solve the problem but concerted action is needed on many fronts.

Facing reality Professor Beddington said: "We've got to actually face up to the fact that this is a complicated problem which involves vastly different levels of society and we need to be persuading policy makers not to think about food in isolation, not to think about climate change in isolation, not to think about water in isolation, not to think about energy in isolation. All of them are intimately related."

The report adds that new research can play an important role. It also says that the use of any particular technology, such as genetic modification, cloning and nanotechnology should not be ruled out. But it acknowledges that there is resistance to the application of controversial technologies.

"Achieving a strong evidence base (of the safety or otherwise) in controversial areas is not enough. Genuine public debate needs to play a crucial role," the report says.

However, by assessing 40 success stories from Africa the report authors say the spread of existing best-practice could treble food production.

"Ending hunger is one of the greatest challenges to be considered by this project," the report observes.
It calls for protection of the poorest from sharp price increases through government intervention and greater liberalisation of the trade in food in order to offset market volatility.

They also note that China has invested heavily in agriculture and is consequently one of the few countries to have met the Millenium Development Goal (MDG) of halving hunger.

The report also calls for new measures to hold governments and food producers to account. This would involve developing objective measures on how well they are doing to reduce hunger, combat climate change and environmental degradation and boosting food production.

Aspartame, Brain Cancer & the FDA Approval Process (Sugarfree Light Diet...

Food: The Ultimate Secret Exposed - PT 1/2

Genetic engineering: The world's greatest scam?

0612 #20 India Biopiracy

Vanishing of the Bees Trailer

The Health Dangers of Genetically Modified Foods

Fox News Kills Monsanto Milk Story

Present! - Daniel Ellsberg at the Farmer-Veteran Coalition

Authors@Google: Michael Pollan

enron the smartest guys in the room - Trailer

The Genetic Conspiracy (1/3) - about Monsanto

The Future of Food - Introduction

The World According to Monsanto part 1 of 10

David Vs Monsanto - Trailer

Food Inc - Official Trailer [HD]

GASLAND Trailer 2010

Scientist warns of dire consequences from widespread use of glyphosate (Monsanto's RoundUp herbicide)

Scientist warns of dire consequences with widespread use of glyphosate The December/January 2010 issue of The Organic & Non-GMO Report featured an interview with Robert Kremer, an adjunct professor in the Division of Plant Sciences at the University of Missouri, whose research showed negative environmental impacts caused by glyphosate, the main ingredient in Monsanto’s Roundup herbicide, which is used extensively with Roundup Ready genetically modified crops.  The following interview is with another scientist, Don Huber, who recently retired from Purdue University, who has also documented negative environmental impacts from glyphosate. The widespread use of glyphosate is causing negative impacts on soil and plants as well as possibly animal and human health. These are key findings of Don Huber, emeritus professor of plant pathology, Purdue University. Compromise agricultural sustainability, animal and human health In a paper published in the European Journal of Agronomy in October 2009, Huber and co-author G.S. Johal, from Purdue’s department of botany and plant pathology, state that the widespread use of glyphosate that we see today in agriculture in the United States can “significantly increase the severity of various plant diseases, impair plant defense to pathogens and diseases, and immobilize soil and plant nutrients rendering them unavailable for plant use.” Further, the authors state that glyphosate stimulates the growth of fungi and enhances the virulence of pathogens such as Fusarium and “can have serious consequences for sustainable production of a wide range of susceptible crops.” The authors warn “ignoring potential non-target detrimental side effects of any chemical, especially used as heavily as glyphosate, may have dire consequences for agriculture such as rendering soils infertile, crops non-productive, and plants less nutritious. To do otherwise might well compromise not only agricultural sustainability, but also the health and well-being of animals and humans.” Please tell me about your research with glyphosate.  Don Huber: I have been doing research on glyphosate for 20 years. I began noticing problems when I saw a consistent increase in “take-all” (a fungal disease that impacts wheat) where glyphosate had been applied in a previous year for weed control. I tried to understand why there was an increase in disease with glyphosate. I found that glyphosate has an effect on reducing manganese in plants, which is essential to many plant defense reactions that protect plants from disease and environmental stress. Glyphosate can immobilize plant nutrients such as manganese, copper, potassium, iron, magnesium, calcium, and zinc so they are no longer nutritionally functional. Glyphosate kills weeds by tying up essential nutrients needed to keep plant defenses active. Glyphosate doesn’t kill weeds directly but shuts down their defense mechanisms so pathogens in the soil can mobilize and kill the weeds. Glyphosate completely weakens the plant, making it susceptible to soil borne fungal pathogens. That is one reason why we see an increase in plant diseases. Glyphosate causes plants to be more susceptible and greatly stimulates the virulence of pathogens that kill plants. How many plant diseases are linked to glyphosate? DH: There has been a general increase in the number of plant diseases in the last 15 to 18 years. There are four primary soil fungi—Fusarium, Phythium, Rhizoctonia, and Phytophthora—that become more active with the use of glyphosate. There has been an increase in take-all, Fusarium diseases, such as head scab, Gibberella (Fusarium) in corn, Pythium, Corynespora or root rot in soybeans, crown rot in sugar beets, and bacterial and fungal diseases. Fusarium head blight (which affects cereal crops) is a disease that produces a mycotoxin that could enter the food chain. There are more than 40 diseases reported with use of glyphosate, and that number keeps growing as people recognize the association (between glyphosate and disease). Has research confirmed the link between glyphosate and Fusarium?  DH: There is plenty of data to show that, and it raises concerns about toxins in food. Can you give an example of a specific crop that has been negatively impacted by glyphosate? DH: Last summer I visited farms that had typical glyphosate damage. I received a call from a potato seed farmer in Minnesota who grows 1000 acres of seed potatoes. There was so much glyphosate in the potato tubers from a previous crop of Roundup Ready soybeans that the potatoes can’t be used as seed and could not be certified. Proponents of glyphosate say it is environmentally benign. Would you agree with that assessment?   DH: Absolutely not. That’s an outright mistaken notion. Glyphosate is the single most important agronomic factor predisposing some plants to both disease and toxins. These toxins can produce a serious impact on the health of animals and humans. Toxins produced can infect the roots and head of the plant and be transferred to the rest of the plant. The toxin levels in straw can be high enough to make cattle and pigs infertile. In your paper you say that “the introduction of such an intense mineral chelator as glyphosate into the food chain through accumulation in feed, forage, and food, and root exudation into ground water, could pose significant health concerns for animals and humans and needs further evaluation.” Could you elaborate on this? DH: Micronutrients such as manganese, copper, potassium, iron, magnesium, calcium, and zinc are essential to human health. All of them can be reduced in availability by glyphosate; mineral nutrients are less in glyphosate treated plants. We are seeing a reduction in nutrient quality (in food crops). There are also reports of allergic reactions, such as stomach lesions, produced by the Roundup Ready (genetically modified) gene. These reactions need to be studied; there needs to be a lot more information that we don’t have. This type of research has been prevented by a lack of access to information. What other impacts do you see caused by the Roundup Ready gene?  DH: The gene will reduce micronutrient efficiency up to 50% for zinc and manganese. It’s very significant unless the plant is supplemented with micronutrients. This could also account for the yield drag (reported with Roundup Ready crops). Unfortunately, most researchers are forbidden to do work in the area. They don’t have access to isogenic lines (conventional and Roundup Ready plant lines that are otherwise genetically identical); the materials are denied to researchers. In your paper you recommend using as small a dose of glyphosate as possible. Why is this? DH: To my knowledge we’ve never had this much reliance on one herbicide. It’s hard to find an acre in the US that hasn’t had glyphosate applied on it in the last three years. We need to have judicious use of glyphosate and remediate the damage that it does. If we continue to abuse the use of glyphosate, it’s just a matter of time before we see more serious negative ramifications. We will have increasing toxin levels (in crops), reduced nutrient values, and the direct presence of glyphosate in crops. There are a lot of serious questions about the impacts of glyphosate that we need answers for in order to continue using this technology. I don’t believe we can ignore these questions any more if we want to ensure a safe, sustainable food supply and abundant crop production.

Site Map Resources Subscribers Only Contact Us

Tel. 1-800-854-0586 (U.S.) or 1-641-209-3426    Email: ken@non-gmoreport.com
PO Box 436, Fairfield, IA    52556    USA

Leaders Preparing to Overhaul Chemical Safety Laws

“We must break the cycle of preventable disease that starts with exposure to chemicals that can cause cancer, birth defects and reproductive disorders.” --Rep. Jay Kaufman, D-Lexington, lead sponsor of the Safer Alternatives bill 1/12/11

Time to Overhaul Chemical Safety Laws 

Under current law, the U.S. EPA has required testing on just 200 of the nearly 80,000 existing chemicals, and restricted only five.

The Jon Spencer Blues Explosion - Talk about the blues

The Jon Spencer Blues Explosion - Talk about the blues

F.D.A and Dairy Industry Spar Over Testing of Milk

Dennis Curran for The New York Times

The Food and Drug Administration is concerned that antibiotics might be contaminating the milk of American dairy cows.

By WILLIAM NEUMAN

Published: January 25, 2011

Each year, federal inspectors find illegal levels of antibiotics in hundreds of older dairy cows bound for the slaughterhouse. Concerned that those antibiotics might also be contaminating the milk Americans drink, the Food and Drug Administration intended to begin tests this month on the milk from farms that had repeatedly sold cows tainted by drug residue.

But the testing plan met with fierce protest from the dairy industry, which said that it could force farmers to needlessly dump millions of gallons of milk while they waited for test results. Industry officials and state regulators said the testing program was poorly conceived and could lead to costly recalls that could be avoided with a better plan for testing.

In response, the F.D.A. postponed the testing, and now the two sides are sparring over how much danger the antibiotics pose and the best way to ensure that the drugs do not end up in the milk supply.

“What has been served up, up to this point, by Food and Drug has been potentially very damaging to innocent dairy farmers,” said John J. Wilson, a senior vice president for Dairy Farmers of America, the nation’s largest dairy cooperative. He said that that the nation’s milk was safe and that there was little reason to think that the slaughterhouse findings would be replicated in tests of the milk supply.

But food safety advocates said that the F.D.A.’s preliminary findings raised issues about the possible overuse of antibiotics in livestock, which many fear could undermine the effectiveness of drugs to combat human illnesses.

“Consumers certainly don’t want to be taking small amounts of drugs every time they drink milk,” said Caroline Smith DeWaal, food safety director of the Center for Science in the Public Interest, an advocacy group. “They want products that are appropriately managed to ensure those drug residues aren’t there, and the dairy farmer is the one who can control that.”

The F.D.A. said that it would confer with the industry before deciding how to proceed. “The agency remains committed to gathering the information necessary to address its concern with respect to this important potential public health issue,” it said in a statement.

The concerns of federal regulators stem from tests done by the Department of Agriculture on dairy cows sent to be slaughtered at meat plants. For years, those tests have found a small but persistent number of animals with drug residues, mostly antibiotics, that violate legal limits.

The tests found 788 dairy cows with residue violations in 2008, the most recent year for which data was available. That was a tiny fraction of the 2.6 million dairy cows slaughtered that year, but regulators say the violations are warning signs because the problem persists from year to year and some of the drugs detected are not approved for use in dairy cows.

The question for the F.D.A. is whether cows that are producing milk also have improper levels of such drugs in their bodies and whether traces of those drugs are getting into the milk.

Regulators and veterinarians say that high levels of drugs can persist in an animal’s system because of misuse of medicines on the farm.

That can include exceeding the prescribed dose or injecting a drug into muscle instead of a vein. Problems can also occur if farmers do not follow rules that require them to wait for a specified number of days after administering medication before sending an animal to slaughter or putting it into milk production.

“F.D.A. is concerned that the same poor management practices which led to the meat residues may also result in drug residues in milk,” the agency said in a document explaining its plan to the industry. In the same document, the F.D.A. said it believed that the nation’s milk supply was safe.

Today, every truckload of milk is tested for four to six antibiotics that are commonly used on dairy farms. The list includes drugs like penicillin and ampicillin, which are also prescribed for people. Each year, only a small number of truckloads are found to be “hot milk,” containing trace amounts of antibiotics. In those cases, the milk is destroyed.

But dairy farmers use many more drugs that are not regularly tested for in milk. Regulators are concerned because some of those other drugs have been showing up in the slaughterhouse testing.

Federal officials have discussed expanded testing for years. But industry executives said that it was not until last month that the F.D.A. told them it was finally going to begin.

The agency said that it planned to test milk from about 900 dairy farms that had repeatedly been caught sending cows to slaughter with illegal levels of drugs in their systems.

It said it would test for about two dozen antibiotics beyond the six that are typically tested for. The testing would also look for a painkiller and anti-inflammatory drug popular on dairy farms, called flunixin, which often shows up in the slaughterhouse testing.

The problem, from the industry’s point of view, is the lengthy time it takes for test results.

The tests currently done for antibiotics in milk take just minutes to complete. But the new tests could take a week or more to determine if the drugs were present in the milk.

Milk moves quickly onto store shelves or to factories where it is made into cheese or other products. The industry worried that, under the F.D.A. plan, by the time a load of milk was found to be contaminated, it could already be in consumers’ refrigerators, and that could lead to recalls.

One Northeast cooperative, Agri-Mark, sent a letter to its members last month instructing them to dump milk if it had been tested by the F.D.A. “Agri-Mark must ensure that all of our milk sales, cheese, butter and other products are in no danger of recall,” the letter said.

Other industry executives said that processing plants would refuse to take any milk from a farm that had been tested until the results showed it was drug-free, meaning farmers could end up dumping milk for a week or more while waiting.

The F.D.A. plan was also criticized by state officials that regulate the dairy industry.

In a sharply worded Dec. 29 letter, the top agriculture officials of 10 Northeastern states, including New York and Pennsylvania, which are both leading dairy producers, told the F.D.A. that its plan was badly flawed. Among other problems, the letter said, forcing farmers to dump large quantities of milk could create environmental problems.

The F.D.A. said it would consider the regulators’ comments as it reviewed its testing plan.

Monsanto Webcast of Global Strategy Presentation 2/9 at 2:30pm ET

Monsanto Company will hold a webcast next Wednesday in conjunction with a presentation by Kerry Preete, senior vice president – global strategy, at the Goldman Sachs. Preete's presentation will begin at 2:30 p.m. E.T. Feb. 9.

News Releases

Monsanto's Kerry Preete to Address Investors at Goldman Sachs Agricultural Biotech Forum

Feb 3, 2011
10:00am

ST. LOUIS, Feb. 3, 2011 /PRNewswire/ -- Monsanto Company (NYSE: MON) will hold a webcast next Wednesday in conjunction with a presentation by Kerry Preete, senior vice president – global strategy, at the Goldman Sachs Agricultural Biotech Forum.  Preete's presentation will begin at 2:30 p.m. E.T. Feb. 9.
Preete will discuss the company's business performance and operational path, financial targets and other matters related to the business.

Slides and a simultaneous audio webcast will be available for the presentation by visiting the investor section of Monsanto's web site at www.monsanto.com/investors.  Following the live broadcast, a replay of the webcast will be available on the Monsanto web site for three weeks.

About Monsanto Company
Monsanto Company is a leading global provider of technology-based solutions and agricultural products that improve farm productivity and food quality. Monsanto remains focused on enabling both small-holder and large-scale farmers to produce more from their land while conserving more of our world's natural resources such as water and energy. To learn more about our business and our commitments, please visit: www.monsanto.com .  Follow our business on Twitter® at www.twitter.com/MonsantoCo, on the company blog, Beyond the Rows at www.monsantoblog.com, or subscribe to our News Release RSS Feed.

CONTACT	Media:     Kelli Powers (314-694-4003)

SOURCE Monsanto Company

For further information: Kelli Powers, +1-314-694-4003, for Monsanto Company

 

Pandora asked for $, so I switched to Blip.fm.

Listen to my station on Blip.fm! http://blip.fm/invite/NandaPropaganda

Hidden Chemicals Linked To Increased Obesity Risk

Chemicals Called Obesogens Found In Everyday Items

Embed this Video

x

• • Email
• • Facebook
  • Digg
  • Twitter
  • Yahoo Buzz
  • Reddit
  • Delicious

Link

BURLINGTON, Mass. -- With two-thirds of Americans now overweight or obese, new research suggests there may be more to it than poor diet and not enough exercise.

Hidden chemicals, called obesogens, are the building blocks of everyday household items. Researchers say they're wreaking havoc on our bodies by disrupting our hormonal systems, which affect fat cells and gene function.

"Certain cells that would normally differentiate into cells that would develop into, say, muscle tissue, or connective tissue, would change and develop into fat tissue or fat cells," said Dr. Theresa Piotrowski, medical director of Lahey Clinic's Medical and Surgical Weight Loss Center.

Obesogens include now infamous bisphenol-A, or BPA, phthalates, which are synthetic chemicals found in plastics, and Perfluorooctanoic acid, or PFOA, which is found in non-stick and stain resistant products. Obesogens are also found in plastic shower curtains, canned goods and cosmetics.

"Endocrine disruptors are seen a lot in PVC plastics, a lot of kids toys, some household goods, building products, even pet toys," said Mia Davis, organizing director at Clean Water Action.

Studies have shown that 93 percent of Americans have detectable levels of BPA in their bodies and that 75 percent have detectable levels of phthalates in their urine.

"It can take very, very low doses, the relevant doses that we're all exposed to, to cause a reaction," said Davis.Coupled with a family history that makes your body prone to fat storage, researchers say it could be a recipe for disaster.

"Try to buy natural products, organic meats, organic fruits, organic vegetables," said Piotrowski. "Try to stay away from pesticides.""But at the end of the day, we can't just shop our way out of this problem," said Davis.

"We need Congress to pass laws to get the unnecessary toxic chemicals out of consumer products in the first place."BPA was recently banned in some baby products in Massachusetts.

Clean Water Action has been pushing for a much wider ban on many other toxic chemicals for at least two years, but it had not yet been voted into law in the state.

new documentary about kids & food politics, on national TV 2/7th

What's on your plate? is a witty and provocative documentary produced and directed by award-winning Catherine Gund about kids and food politics.

Filmed over the course of one year, the film follows two eleven-year-old multi-racial city kids as they explore their place in the food chain. Sadie and Safiyah take a close look at food systems in New York City and its surrounding areas. With the camera as their companion, the girl guides talk to each other, food activists, farmers, new friends, storekeepers, their families, and the viewer, in their quest to understand what’s on all of our plates.
The girls address questions regarding the origin of the food they eat, how it’s cultivated, how many miles it travels from the harvest to their plate, how it’s prepared, who prepares it, and what is done afterwards with the packaging and leftovers. They visit the usual supermarkets, fast food chains, and school lunchrooms. But they also check into innovative sustainable food system practices by going to farms, greenmarkets, and community supported agriculture programs. They discover that these programs both help struggling farmers to survive on the one hand and provide affordable, locally-grown food to communities on the consumer end, especially to lower-income urban families. In WHAT’S ON YOUR PLATE?, the two friends formulate sophisticated and compassionate opinions on the state of their society, and by doing so inspire hope and active engagement in others.

Relationships between children and the food they eat have become more complicated and more important than ever. In a free-market system in the richest and most culturally diverse country in the world, the stakes could not be higher when it comes to who controls food production, distribution, cost, and quality. So, how do kids feel about food — accessing it, choosing what to have, preparing it and eating it — as an element of their daily lives? How do kids feel about contending with the life-threatening epidemics of childhood obesity, heart disease and diabetes that are so prevalent in their families, schools, and communities?
WHAT’S ON YOUR PLATE? shows city kids opening their lunch boxes and digging in, families unpacking groceries bought at the supermarket and at the co-op, adults who are learning with children how to take care of their food, their bodies and the environment all at the same time. Sadie and Safiyah visit restaurants supplied with locally grown food, an upstate New York carrot farmer hoping to sell his local harvest to the New York City Department of Education school lunch program, and a local CSA. The film will culminate with a delicious local meal that the girls will cook with their classmates.
When it comes to food production, children and families need much more knowledge to combat the industry’s financial interest in keeping their practices secret, with no concern for consumers or the planet. The filmmakers are committed to helping children and families of all backgrounds, classes and locations learn about where their food comes from so that they can make healthy, informed choices about what they feed their bodies. The purpose of our documentary film project is to educate, enlighten, and inspire our community, and will address health concerns, issues of class and race as they relate to food availability, questionable food production and consumption practices, and general food consciousness in terms of cultivating a taste for local food within a community.

Do you think we need to change the way we eat in this country?

On February 12, that will be the topic of discussion for an amazing array of speakers - including Slow Food USA's President Josh Viertel. It's part of the TEDx events: short, carefully prepared talks to share 'ideas worth spreading'. And the good news is you can be a part of it!

Joining Josh at the one day event will be over 20 high-profile speakers including the makers of "King Corn", the first farmer to receive a MacArthur 'Genius' Fellowship, and the USDA's coordinator of 'Know Your Farmer, Know your Food', all sharing ideas about how we can shift our industrial food system to one that provides good, clean, fair food for all.

This is a fantastic opportunity to stimulate these conversations in your local area. And a great excuse to get together with like-minded people in your community! Click here to find out how to host or attend a live 'Viewing Party' on Saturday February 12:
http://tedxmanhattan.org/viewing-parties/

Can't make a Viewing Party? No problem! We'll be live-streaming the TEDx talks on our website, so you can take part in the conversation from the comfort of your own home.

TEDx talks feature thought leaders at the cutting edge of their industry. This day is focused entirely on food - a testament to the importance of finding new ways to redefine the way we grow and eat food.

The thought-provoking speakers can be broadcast right into your home, cafe, town hall - or wherever you want to gather to share these ideas in your community. Click here to find out more: http://tedxmanhattan.org/viewing-parties/

Thanks for being a part of the solution,
The Slow Food USA team

PS - There's an amazing event happening in Manhattan on February 12 - but it will be just like you're there, when we be beam it live from coast to coast! If you'd like to host a live 'Viewing Party' in your area, or find one to attend, click here.

Viewing Parties

In an effort to let as many people as possible participate in TEDxManhattan, we will webcast the event live.  We are encouraging individuals and groups around the country to set up their own viewing parties. These parties are opportunities for people around the world to connect with each other and the sustainable food movement. While your event will revolve around the speakers in NYC, organizers are encouraged to have their own short talks and plan activities to engage their participants during breaks.

We encourage you to set up your own local, sustainable food event or attend one in your area. Visit the TEDxManhattan MeetUp Everywhere page to register your event and to see events around you. If you are planning an event, please email us at TEDxManhattan@gmail.com.

If you find you can’t attend a local viewing party, you can watch TEDxManhattan live on your computer at http://livestream.com/tedx.