Tell EPA to do its job and stop poisoning bees! [SIZE=small]As if the situation weren't bad enough for the bees already, EPA is once again turning its back on protecting pollinators by proposing to expand the use of yetmore bee-toxic pesticides. [/SIZE][SIZE=small][/SIZE] [SIZE=small]<span style="font-size:small;">Bees are essential for one out of three bites of food we eat. But they are being wiped out by the widespread use of certain chemicals – specifically systemic insecticides, like neonicotinoids (“neonics†for short). Despite numerous scientific studies showing that these systemic insecticides are harmful to bees, EPA is actually proposing to expand the use of two such bee-toxic pesticides - thiamethoxam and sulfoxaflor. <span style="font-size:small;">When will EPA get the message that enough is enough? Bee-toxic pesticides are already used on over a hundred crops – and now EPA wants to approve more uses of these chemicals?[/SIZE][SIZE=small] Unlike the U.S., the European Union has already suspended the use of thiamethoxam for its potential to harm honeybees. In the U.S., Center for Food Safety has sued the EPA to suspend the use of thiamethoxam [1], and some of the nation's largest beekeeping associations have sued the EPA and Dow Chemical to remove sulfoxaflor from the market; in fact, even EPA admitted that sulfoxaflor is “very highly toxic†to bees [2]. [/SIZE]</span></span> [SIZE=small]<span style="font-size:small;">EPA has dug itself into a dangerous hole, but instead of putting the shovel down, they seem intent on continuing to dig. Beekeepers across the country continue to report record-high bee kills. Recently, over 80,000 bee hives were decimated in California almond orchards, and again the damage was linked to bee-toxic chemicals [3]. And it's not just honey bees suffering – native bees like bumblebees are also dying as a result of pesticide poisoning. Nearly one year ago, the largest bumblebee kill ever recorded took place in Oregon after a pesticide application in a Target parking lot [4]. The EPA has a public comment period open until May 27th – meaning we have less than one week left to make our voices heard. Tell EPA to do its job and stop poisoning bees! Thanks for everything you do, Center for Food Safety[/SIZE]</span> I know what FDA is doing. Job creation!!! Since all the big manufacturing companies are slowly but surely moving offshore, and with the implementation of Obamacare we have the businesses that are left doing some minor downsizing to keep overhead in check. Sooooo we can all look forward to becoming pollinating experts. Yep, we will manually pollinate our food crops. And we'll get paid for it!!! At the awesome rate of MINIMUM WAGE .
Personally I feel as though if we end world hungry we will most likely end the world. Just with China alone, if the entire rural population goes into cities were done. Critical mass and all that. Eating the Sun is a really good book, opened my eyes to a lot of crazy things. Ramble Ramble Ramble.
A few weeks ago in the news. My local dispensary and worldwide business, Riverrock is now partners with Monsanto and is going to help them with their project in Uruguay. Riverrock is the first marijuana business in the history of the world to contract with Monsanto. Beware.
TOP NEWS Brazil farmers say GMO corn no longer resistant to pests Mon, Jul 28 23:59 PM BST By Caroline Stauffer SAO PAULO (Reuters) - Genetically modified corn seeds are no longer protecting Brazilian farmers from voracious tropical bugs, increasing costs as producers turn to pesticides, a farm group said on Monday. Producers want four major manufacturers of so-called BT corn seeds to reimburse them for the cost of spraying up to three coats of pesticides this year, said Ricardo Tomczyk, president of Aprosoja farm lobby in Mato Grosso state. "The caterpillars should die if they eat the corn, but since they didn't die this year producers had to spend on average 120 reais ($54) per hectare ... at a time that corn prices are terrible," he said. Large-scale farming in the bug-ridden tropics has always been a challenge, and now Brazil's government is concerned that planting the same crops repeatedly with the same seed technologies has left the agricultural superpower vulnerable to pest outbreaks and dependent on toxic chemicals. Experts in the United States have also warned about corn production prospects because of a growing bug resistance to genetically modified corn. Researchers in Iowa found significant damage from rootworms in corn fields last year. In Brazil, the main corn culprit is Spodoptera frugiperda, also known as the corn leafworm or southern grassworm. Seed companies say they warned Brazilian farmers to plant part of their corn fields with conventional seeds to prevent bugs from mutating and developing resistance to GMO seeds. Dow Agrosciences, a division of Dow Chemical Co, has programs in Brazil to help corn farmers develop "an integrated pest management system that includes, among other things, the cultivation of refuge areas," it said in an email. Another company, DuPont, said it had not received any formal notification from Aprosoja. The company's Pioneer brand has been working with producers to extend the durability of its seed technology and improve efficiency since Spodoptera worms were found to have developed resistance to the Cry1F protein, it said in a statement. Monsanto Co also said in a statement that it has not been formally notified by the group. The other company, Syngenta AG, did not immediately respond to a request for comment. Tomczyk, who also spoke for Brazilian farmers during a dispute over seed royalty payments to Monsanto that ended last year, said Aprosoja encouraged the planting of refuge areas. But he said the seed companies have not given clear instructions. "There are barely any non-GMO seeds available ... it is very uncomfortable that the companies are blaming the farmers," he said. Aprosoja hopes to reach a negotiated agreement with the seed companies, but if all else fails farmers may sue to get reparations for pesticide costs, he added. Brazil is harvesting its second of two annual corn crops and expects to produce 78 million tonnes this crop year, slightly less than last season's record. Domestic prices recently fell to their lowest in four years because of abundant supplies. ($1 = 2.223 reais) \n(Reporting by Caroline Stauffer; Editing by Lisa Shumaker and Steve Orlofsky)
\t2014 articles\t\t\tCancer deaths double where GM crops and agrochemicals used\t\ton \t\t\t\t\t24 June 2014\t\t.\tA report by the Ministry of Health in Cordoba, Argentina shows that deaths from cancer are double the national average in areas where GM crops and agrochemicals are used. \tEXCERPT: The university professor questioned the claims of government and industry. "They keep demanding studies on something that is already proven and do not take urgent measures to protect the population. There is ample evidence that the agricultural model has health consequences, we are talking about a production model that is a huge public health problem," he claimed. \t--- \t--- Danger in the fields \tDario Aranda \tPagina12, 23 June 2014 http://www.pagina12.com.ar/diario/sociedad/3-249175-2014-06-23.html \tEnglish translation of the Spanish original by Google/GMWatch \tA report by the Ministry of Health in Cordoba on deaths from cancerous tumours shows that the highest rate of deaths occur in areas where GM crops and agro-chemicals are used. The rate is double the national average. \tThe Ministry of Health of Córdoba released a comprehensive report on cancer in the province. It documented five years of information and, among other parameters, geographically determined the cases. The peculiarity which caused a major alarm is that the highest rate of deaths occurs in the "pampa gringa" area, where most transgenic and agrochemicals are used. And where the death rate is double the national average. "Once again, what we have complained about for years was confirmed and especially what doctors say about the sprayed towns and areas affected by industrial agriculture. Cancer cases are multiplying as never before in areas with massive use of pesticides," said the doctor and member of the University Network for Environment and Health (Reduas), Medardo Avila Vazquez. They demanded immediate measures to protect the population. \tThe official investigation in book form is entitled "Report on cancer in Cordoba 2004-2009", and was prepared by the Provincial Tumour Registry and the Department of Statistics and Census. It was introduced in the Legislature by the Minister of Health, Francisco Fortuna, and the director of the Provincial Cancer Institute, MartÃn Alonso. \tThe international standard is to calculate deaths per 100 thousand inhabitants. The provincial average is 158 deaths per 100,000 inhabitants, and in Cordoba Capital the rate is 134.8. But four Cordoba departments are well above those rates: Marcos Juárez (229.8), Presidente Roque Sáenz Peña (228.4), Union (217.4) and San Justo (216.8). It's called "pampa gringa", the emblematic area of Cordoba agriculture. \tAccording to the International Agency for Research on Cancer (of the World Health Organization), in its latest 2012 data for Argentina, mortality is 115.13, half of what is suffered in Marcos Juárez (229.8). \tFernando Manas holds a PhD in Biology and is a member of the Genetics and Environmental Mutagenesis Group, National University of Rio Cuarto, which is investigating the effect of agrochemicals. He doesn't think the cancer cases in agricultural areas are a coincidence: "There is evidence of high levels of genetic damage in people of Marcos Juárez, which may result from unintentional exposure to pesticides." \tResearchers at RÃo Cuarto have studied the people of Córdoba for eight years and have confirmed, in fifteen scientific publications, that those exposed to pesticides suffer genetic damage and are more prone to cancer. Manas recalled that in Marcos Juárez province, glyphosate (and its major degradation product, AMPA) have been detected in lakes, soils, and even in rainwater. \tThe Córdoba government's investigation arranged the cancer map according to groupings for the level of deaths. The "pampa gringa" (the whole of the east of the province) is located in the first segment. The second level corresponds to the departments of RÃo Cuarto, General San Martin, Celman, Tercero Arriba and General Roca. The deaths range from 180-201 per 100 thousand inhabitants, rates that exceed the provincial and national average. This second level also has the distinction of being dedicated to industrial farming. \tThe provincial government emphasized the overall statistics of incidence (new cases) and compared them with other countries (the province remains at the average rate), stratified by age and sex, and locations of tumours. It de-emphasised the link between high mortality and agricultural areas. In Cordoba there is much debate over the Monsanto facility in the town of Malvinas Argentinas. \tDamian Verzeñassi is a doctor and professor of social and environmental health at the, Faculty of Medical Sciences in Rosario. He is one of those responsible for the "Health Camp", an educational initiative in which dozens of students in the final year of their medical training are installed in a location for a week and made a health map. "The study of Córdoba matches the surveys we conducted in eighteen industrial agriculture areas. Cancer has skyrocketed in the last fifteen years," said Verzeñassi. \tThe university professor questioned the claims of government and industry. "They keep demanding studies on something that is already proven and do not take urgent measures to protect the population. There is ample evidence that the agricultural model has health consequences, we are talking about a production model that is a huge public health problem," he claimed. \tAvila Vázquez of the University Network for Environment and Health detailed a dozen scientific studies that prove the link between chemicals and cancer, and also listed some thirty villages where official records confirm the increase of the disease: Brinkmann, Noetinger, Hernando (Córdoba) and San Salvador (Entre Rios), among others. "The tobacco companies denied the link between smoking and cancer, and took decades to recognize the truth. The biotech and agrochemical corporations are the same as the tobacco industry, they lie and favour business over the health of the population," Avila Vasquez said. He demanded urgent initial measures: prohibiting aerial spraying, ensuring that no terrestrial applications are made within 1000 meters of houses, and prohibiting depositories of agro-chemicals and spraying machinery in urban areas \t \t2014 articles\t\t\tDuPont Co. sued for $1 billion over GM technology\t\ton \t\t\t\t\t06 June 2014\t\t.\tWould a biotech company continue to hype its GM crop technology as a success even after it had failed in field trials? \tYes, according to an investment fund, which is suing DuPont company directors for allegedly promoting herbicide-resistant crop traits even though they knew they didn't work. \t--- \t--- DuPont Co. sued for $1 billion over genetic technology \tBy Phil Milford and Dawn McCarty \tBloomberg, Jun 4, 2014 http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-06-04/dupont-co-sued-for-1-billion-over-genetic-technology.html \tDuPont Co. (DD), the maker of Pioneer genetically modified corn, was sued for $1 billion by an investment fund that claims company directors promoted herbicide-resistant crop traits knowing they didn't work. \tThe Ironworkers District Council of Philadelphia & Vicinity Retirement & Pension Plan contends that some past and present DuPont directors wasted corporate assets and fraudulently promoted a specific gene trait, known as GAT, in a Delaware Chancery Court lawsuit made public today. \tBefore filing the suit, plaintiff's lawyers issued a legally defined “demand†on DuPont's board “to investigate and commence an action†against directors and executives, court papers show. \tDan Turner, a DuPont spokesman, said today that “several months ago, DuPont's Board of Directors unanimously rejected the shareholder derivative claims†following an independent investigation by former Delaware Chancellor William Chandler and two independent DuPont directors. Turner said they concluded the claims “were not supported by the facts or the law and that pursuing those claims would not be in the best interest of DuPontâ€. \tGAT grew out of Wilmington, Delaware-based DuPont's efforts to develop products that increase crop yields, including genetic engineering of seeds to make plants more resistant, for instance so herbicides kill weeds but not crops. \tMonsanto Product \tAccording to court papers, DuPont in 2002 took licenses from Monsanto Co. to use its Roundup Ready trait, which helps crops resist otherwise harmful effects of Monsanto's Roundup herbicide. By 2005, DuPont decided to develop its own trait -- GAT. \tDuPont “with great fanfare†announced in 2006 that in 2009 it would begin selling GAT, which stands for glyphosate acetolactate synthase tolerance, with possible sales of $200 million a year, according to the complaint. GAT seeds are genetically altered to tolerate weedkillers known as ALS herbicides. \tSoon “field trials of GAT were producing disappointing results†and DuPont “continued to publicly hype GAT†and “conceal the failureâ€, the fund said. \tIn 2009, DuPont disclosed it was adding a Monsanto Co. (MON) genetic technology, used to make crops resistant to weedkillers, to its product because the combination helped boost crop yields. Monsanto sued and in August 2012 a federal jury in St. Louis awarded Monsanto $1 billion in damages. \tLegal Fees \tAs a result of wasteful mismanagement, according to the lawsuit, “the company was sanctioned by a federal judge and millions of dollars were spent on attorneys' fees and other expenses,†while directors “failed to institute and maintain adequate controls†and damaged the company. \tAfter the judgment, DuPont appointed an “evaluation committee" to investigate claims made by shareholders. The board retained authority to take any action. The committee issued a report in late November and subsequently provided it to the fund's attorney. \t"The report is not an objective analysis of the record and relevant evidence,†the fund said. It doesn't “provide an objective and reasoned analysis on which the board could reasonably relyâ€. \tThe Ironworkers accuse DuPont of civil fraud, negligent and intentional misrepresentation, waste of corporate assets and breach of fiduciary duties. ... \t
\t2014 articles\t\t\tThe farce of GMO industry safety studies\t\ton \t\t\t\t\t11 July 2014\t\t.\t \tControl animals fed GMOs and pesticides makes industry GM canola safety study worthless \tWho would have expected that toxicology would become a rich reservoir of farce and irony? Yet that is exactly what has happened in the area of GMO toxicity testing, thanks to double standards that mean studies finding harm are judged very differently to those finding safety. \tThe latest episode in the farce is a GMO industry safety study designed to test the effects in rats fed a GMO canola compared with rats fed non-GM canola. Unfortunately, the test animals were fed GMOs and pesticides and control animals were also fed – er – GMOs and pesticides. Unsurprisingly, the study found no effect from feeding the GM food under test and concluded that it was safe. In spite of its poor design, the study could be used to gain regulatory approval for the GM Roundup-tolerant canola under test. \tThe study (Delaney and colleagues, 2014) was published in April this year by employees of the biotech and agrochemical giant DuPont in the journal Food and Chemical Toxicology (FCT). Readers will recall that in November 2013 the editor of this same journal, A. Wallace Hayes, forcibly retracted the long-term rat feeding study by the team of Prof Gilles-Eric Séralini. Séralini's study found toxic effects in rats fed doses of NK603 GM maize and Roundup deemed safe by regulators. Hayesclaimed he retracted the paper on the grounds of the "inconclusive" nature of the tumour and mortality findings in treated groups of rats. He blamed the alleged inconclusiveness on the relatively low number of rats used and the strain of rat, the Sprague-Dawley, which he claimed was unusually prone to tumours. \tHayes's rationale for retracting the paper – inconclusiveness – was widely derided by scientists. Prof Jack Heinemann of the University of Canterbury, New Zealandpointed out that if this standard were applied consistently, this would result in a huge number of important studies being retracted, including two pioneering papers by James Watson and Francis Crick describing the structure of DNA and how it might replicate, which at the time of publication were inconclusive. \tNow Séralini's team has hit back at the FCT editor's accusations in an analysis of the DuPont study. The analysis, published in FCT as a letter to the editor, exposes as worthless the DuPont authors' claims of safety for the GM canola variety tested. \tSéralini's team analysed the laboratory rodent diet used in the DuPont experiment, which was obtained from a well-known company called Purina. They obtained the same type of feed from Purina and found that it was contaminated with 18% of Roundup-tolerant maize NK603 and 14.9% of GM Bt maize MON810. They also found that the feed contained residues of glyphosate and AMPA (the main metabolite of glyphosate). So although the control rats weren't eating the GM canola under test, they were eating other GMOs with the same glyphosate-tolerant trait, as well as residues of the pesticide that the GMOs are grown with. In plain English, the study did not compare rats fed a GM diet with rats fed a non-GM diet, but rats fed one type of GMO plus pesticides with rats fed similar GMOs plus pesticides. \tSéralini and colleagues state, "the uncontrolled presence of pesticide residues and other GMOs make the study inconclusive". They add that according to the criteria of the FCT editor Hayes, the study should be retracted. \tSéralini's team, in contrast, did control for GMOs and pesticides in the diets used for their chronic toxicity study. So their study accurately tested for the effects of GM NK603 maize and Roundup herbicide – and the effects of organ damage and hormonal disruption found in the treated rats were real. \t\t\tSpurious control groups\tThe DuPont researchers made their study even more inconclusive by restricting it to a 3-month timespan too short to show long-term health effects. They also added spurious control groups of animals fed a variety of irrelevant "reference" diets. This practice, common in the GMO industry's studies on its own products, has the effect of drowning out any statistical differences in the GM-fed group in the resulting "data noise". Many industry studies with a similar poor design have been published in FCT and were not retracted. \tFCT editor Hayes based his verdict of the "inconclusive" nature of the tumour and mortality findings in the Séralini paper on the relatively small number of rats used and the supposedly tumour-prone nature of the Sprague-Dawley strain. Yet the DuPont authors concluded on safety over a shorter period of time, measuring a smaller number of health effects, and using a comparably small number of rats (12 per sex per group compared with Séralini's 10) of the same Sprague-Dawley strain. \tThere is further irony in the fact that we are not allowed to suspect that DuPont's reassuring findings on its own GMO might be a false negative, where a toxic effect exists but is missed because of poor experimental design. But conversely we are expected to believe that Séralini's findings, dramatic as they are, are all false positives and an artefact of the small number of rats used and the rat strain chosen – two factors which miraculously become acceptable in the DuPont study and many other industry studies. \tTo round off this GMO farce, the DuPont authors declare in their paper that "there are no conflicts of interest" – despite the fact that they are employees of the company that stands to profit from the market authorisation of the GMO in question. And Bryan Delaney, the first author of the DuPont study, is also managing editor of FCT. That interest too goes undisclosed. \tIf these shenanigans weren't putting public health at risk, we'd be rolling in the aisles. \t(by Claire Robinson) \tImage courtesy of GMO Free USA and GMO Free Canada \t
Great posts @[member="7557rb"] The DuPont ones just made me laugh. WHY THE FUCK ARENT MORE PEOPLE UPSET OVER THESE THINGS!
\t2014 articles\t\t\tBollworms develop resistance against Bt cotton in Pakistan\t\ton \t\t\t\t\t16 July 2014\t\t.\tIn Pakistan, experts believe that low level of Bt toxins in GM cotton crops have immunised the pests instead of killing them \t\t\tBollworms develop resistance against Bt cotton crop\tJamal Shahid \tDawn.com, 14 Jul 2014 http://www.dawn.com/news/1119078/bollworms-develop-resistance-against-bt-cotton-crop \tFarmers and agriculture scientists are alarmed by the destructive attack of bollworms this year that seem to have developed resistance against the genetically-modified (GM) cotton crop. \tThe surprise comes especially when different species of bollworms, such as American, Pink and Spotted bollworm, were supposed to be eradicated after feasting on the GM Bt cotton crop. Instead, these destructive pests have attacked a major cotton growing belt in Southern Punjab, this year. \tFarmers fear instead of being eliminated, the bollworms developed resistance due to insufficient toxin levels in Bt cotton crop. \tIf not controlled, the pests' attack on cotton crop will most likely damage the quality of fibre and the cotton seed, resulting in a decline in the yield this year. \t“All Bt varieties of cotton have failed to kill bollworms and live up to their agricultural success stories. We have found four separate patches in our fields where Army bollworm and mealy bug have attacked the crop,†said Chaudhry Gohar Ali, who grows cotton in Vehari near Multan. \tThe 73-year-old cotton grower complained that most farmers felt helpless and concerned government offices were urging the farmers to continuously spray pesticides. \tDespite availability of Bt varieties Bollgard-II (BG-2) and Roundup Ready Flex (RRF) cotton in the markets of Southern Punjab and Sindh, it was surprising that the farmers were reporting pest development in the cotton fields. \tA cotton grower from Shahdadpur in Sindh, Muhammad Bux, is equally concerned about his crop spread on 100 acres. \t“I am surprised how these pests have survived after eating the Bt cotton crop. Pests should be dying because of the high doses of toxins in Bt cotton plant and not developing resistance, which seems to be the case here,†said Bux, who was also resorting to more than usual dose of pesticide. He explained that since the last few years, the Gulabi Sundi (Pink Bollworm) has been causing devastation in three districts of Sindh every year and farmers have to spray pesticides to save their GM cotton crop. \tWith prices of pesticides ranging between Rs600 to Rs700 per litre, the costs of production have also gone higher for the farmers, without any relief from government. The usage of pesticides increased after Bt was introduced in Pakistan, as the cotton production had been reducing. \tAccording to experts in Pakistan Agriculture Research Council (PARC), pests have possibly started developing a resistance against Bt crops, since they were introduced in 2004-05. The genetically modified cotton seeds contain insufficient dose of toxins that killed pests and were also of poor quality. \t“The government has spent an estimated Rs985 million, besides foreign aid, in this regard in the name of research and development of biotechnology. Instead of developing indigenous modified seeds, researchers and scientists ended up copying technology from multinational seed-producing companies and started selling them in the markets to local farmers,†said an agriculture expert in PARC. \tWhen GM crops were officially introduced in Pakistan in 2010, the move was resisted as some stakeholders believed that bollworms were less disastrous than leaf curl virus and mealy bug, against which Bt is completely ineffective. \tThe senior official also added that there was no national pest management programme to educate farmers regarding pests and to monitor the development of resistance. \tDocuments by Punjab Pest Alert Department, available with Dawn, show how the threat of these bollworms had always been as low as one to two per cent in Punjab, where 80 to 90 per cent of the country's cotton is produced amounting to about 10 million bales annually. \tPakistan Atomic Energy Commission (PAEC) Director Agriculture and Biotech Dr Nayyer Iqbal did not seem surprised by the attack of bollworms on cotton crop. \t“Resistance in pests has been developing because of low toxin levels. Some Bt seed variety have absolutely no toxin doses at all, making the crop vulnerable to pest infestation,†said Dr Iqbal, explaining in not so many words how a host of problems associated with GM seed in Pakistan had caused the new technology to almost fail. \t“The idea of introducing genetically modified seeds in Pakistan was to minimise pesticide usage and reduce the costs of inputs, apart from keeping the environment clean,†said Dr Iqbal, who explained how several uncertified and unregulated varieties of seeds were being sold in the market without any government departments regulating the quality of seeds. \t“It is a little early to elaborate on how widespread the attack is. But it will definitely impact the cotton yield,†Dr Iqbal said. Sarwar Rahi, who is a technical manager for a private pesticides and seed importing company, recently completed a field survey in Multan and confirmed the attacks of bollworms in Punjab. “The farmers are using substandard seed that is also low in toxins available in the market. It is being presumed that pests are developing resistance due to low toxin levels in Bt seed varieties,†Mr Rahi said. \t
People are in "entertainment mode" and that is what they persue. Hell I don't know steve, lazy, sheep, don't care, who knows?
\t2014 articles\t\t\tGM golden rice paper to be retracted amid ethics scandal\t\ton \t\t\t\t\t18 July 2014\t\t.\t \tChildren were fed GM rice without the informed consent of parents \tAT LONG LAST, the serious breaches of medical and scientific ethics of the GM golden rice trials on Chinese children appear to have been recognised – in this case, by the journal that published the research paper reporting the experiments. \tThe American Journal of Clinical Nutrition is reportedly retracting the paper. The main concerns appear to be lack of informed consent on the part of the human subjects – neither the children nor their parents were told the rice was GM, nor were they informed of the possible risks. Ethical breaches are among the valid reasons for retracting a study, according to COPE (Committee on Publication Ethics). \tWhile the blame for the fiasco is being placed on the lead researcher, Guangwen Tang of Tufts University, a large part of the responsibility should lie with the Tufts University ethics board that was supposed to be supervising the trial. \tInternational scientists denounced the GM golden rice trials for breaching medical ethics back in 2009. No toxicity tests had been carried out in animals prior to the human trials, or at least none had been published. The scientists said the trials contravened the Nuremberg Code, set up after World War II to prevent a repeat of unethical and inhumane Nazi experiments on humans. \tThe IRRI, the body responsible for the rollout of GM golden rice, has admitted that no efficacy trials have been carried out to see if GM golden rice actually works in helping solve vitamin A deficiency. \tGM golden rice doesn't even perform well in the field. In May 2013 the IRRI reportedit had failed in field trials. \tMeantime, the Philippines, where GM golden rice was field trialled, has all butsolved its vitamin A deficiency problems by applying time-tested, commonsense non-GM solutions. \t(Comment by Claire Robinson) \t\t\tRice researcher in ethics scrape threatens journal with lawsuit over coming retraction\tCat Ferguson \tRetractionWatch, 17 Jul 2014 http://retractionwatch.com/2014/07/17/rice-researcher-in-ethics-scrape-threatens-journal-with-lawsuit-over-coming-retraction/ \tGuangwen Tang, a rice researcher at Tufts University, landed in hot water in 2012 after her team was accused of feeding Chinese children genetically modified Golden Rice without having obtained informed consent from the parents. \tNow, she's suing both Tufts and the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, which reportedly is retracting a paper, “ß-carotene in Golden Rice is as good as p-carotene in oil at providing vitamin A to children,†based on the federally funded research, claiming that the retraction would constitute defamation. (That retraction hasn't happened yet.) \tThis isn't the first time we've heard the retraction = defamation line. Readers might remember Ariel Fernandez, who threatened to sue us for writing about an expression of concern. Maybe a course on the Streisand Effect should be mandatory for PhD students? \tAccording to a 2012 Nature report, the trial was chock-full of ethical missteps. Tang brought the rice into China illegally, and one of her Chinese partners faked ethics approval documents. During the study, a Chinese official emailed Tang saying he was taking mention of GMO off the consent forms, because it was “too sensitive,†according to reporters on China's state television channel. Three Chinese officials ended up being dismissed for violating ethics laws, and Tang received a two-year suspension from conducting human research. From Nature: \t"The trial was designed to test how efficiently the β-carotene is converted to the vitamin once ingested. The US study team was led by Guangwen Tang, a nutrition scientist at Tufts University in Boston, Massachusetts, and was part-funded by the US National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, and the US Department of Agriculture. \t"According to a paper published online by the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition on 1 August, each group of two dozen or so children aged six to eight ate meals containing Golden Rice, spinach or β-carotene capsules for lunch every week day during the three-week trial. \t"But none of the children, their parents or school teachers was aware that Golden Rice was involved, according to a 45-minute investigative news programme broadcast on 8 December on CCTV, China's state television channel. \t"The informed-consent form said that the rice contained β-carotene, but not that it was genetically modified or that it was Golden Rice. Nor did it highlight uncertainty around any potential risks of ingesting such rice." \tAfter a year-long investigation, Tufts concluded that Tang had breached ethical regulations. In addition the two year human studies ban, any future research she conducts will take place under the watchful eye of a supervising scientist. From NPR: \t"But Tufts, after spending more than a year carrying out its own review, now says that the study was not “conducted in full compliance with … policy or federal regulations.†According to the Tufts report, the researchers did not adequately explain the nature of golden rice and made some changes in the study without getting approval from the committee at Tufts that is supposed to review all research involving human subjects." \tHere are details of the complaint, from Courthouse News Service: \t"After completing the research, Tang wrote a scientific article titled “ß-carotene in Golden Rice is as good as p-carotene in oil at providing vitamin A to children.†The American Society for Nutrition published the article in its journal in 2012. \t"'The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition' has thousands of subscribers and more than 3 million hits to its online journal site per month, according to the complaint. \t"Tang says the article got a lot of attention in the scientific community and has been downloaded more than 32,000 times. \t"Nevertheless, she claims, the American Society for Nutrition, which owns the journal and holds the copyright, told Tang that it planned to retract her article due to an investigation into her research protocol.… \t"The university last year suspended Tang's human-subject research 'pending further analysis,' according to the lawsuit. \t"Although it found no evidence of research misconduct with respect to the study, and no health or safety problems, the university told Tang she would be subject to disciplinary actions regarding future research, she claims in the complaint.… \t"She seeks an injunction and damages for defamation, breach of contract and interference with business relations." \tWe can't verify Tang's claims about the popularity of her article. But it has been cited 12 times, according to Thomson Reuters Web of Science. \tIt's unclear if any lawsuits have been served yet, and the retraction doesn't seem to be out yet. AJCN editor Dennis Bier declined to comment, citing legal sensitivity. We've reached out to Tang's lawyer for a copy of the lawsuit, and will update with anything new we learn. Hat tip: Rolf Degen and Raychelle Burks \t \t2014 articles\t\t\tGlyphosate found in malformed piglets – study\t\ton \t\t\t\t\t25 July 2014\t\t.\tThe more glyphosate in the feed, the higher the number of birth defects in the herd \tGlyphosate has been found in malformed piglets. The research study was conducted by a team of researchers from Germany and Egypt in collaboration with the Danish pig farmer Ib Pedersen, whose pigs were analysed for glyphosate content. \tThe rate of malformations increased to one out of 260 born piglets if sow feeds contained 0.87-1.13 ppm glyphosate in the first 40 days of pregnancy. In the case of 0.25 ppm glyphosate in sow feeds, one out of 1432 piglets was malformed. In this case, therefore, a higher dose of glyphosate led to more malformations. \tThe piglets showed different abnormalities, including ear atrophy, spinal and cranial deformations, hole in the skull, and leg atrophy. In one piglet, one eye was not developed; it had a single large one (cyclopia, a malformation observed in Argentine populations exposed to Roundup spraying). There were piglets without a trunk, with an "elephant tongue", and a female piglet with testes. One malformed piglet had a swollen belly and the foregut and hindgut were not connected. \tThe highest concentrations of glyphosate were found in the lungs and heart, with the lowest concentrations in muscle. \tThe researchers note, "Further investigations are urgently needed to prove or exclude the role of glyphosate in malformations in piglets and other animals." \tThis would mean feeding laboratory animals a diet containing the same concentrations of glyphosate (in the form of Roundup) as were in Ib Pedersen's pigs feed, in a multigenerational study. This would provide the definitive causative proof needed to condemn glyphosate herbicides as the culprit. \tThe study: \tKrüger M, Schrödl W, Pedersen Ib, Shehata AA (2014) Detection of glyphosate in malformed piglets. J Environ Anal Toxicol 4: 230. doi:10.4172/2161-0525.1000230 http://omicsonline.org/open-access/detection-of-glyphosate-in-malformed-piglets-2161-0525.1000230.pdf \t
Hmmm...well since the bugs are resisting this chemical, let's use another one that we (old chemical weapons manufacturers) happen to have big supplies of: USDA signals approval of Dow's 2,4-D-resistant seeds But our fight to protect our food system must continue. Last week, USDA announced final plans to give Dow the green light to begin marketing its controversial genetically engineered 2,4-D-resistant seeds. After 30 days, the USDA decision will become official. At the same time, the agency announced its preliminary decision to also approve Monsanto's dicamba-resistant seeds. USDA's announcement came right after fifty Members of Congress led by Representatives Peter DeFazio (D-OR-04) and Congresswoman Chellie Pingree (D-ME-01) wrote to the USDA and the EPA expressing “grave concerns†over Dow's new use application for 2,4-D and the GMO corn and soy the herbicide would be used with. Thank you to everyone who took the time to call their U.S. Representative to urge them to sign on to this letter! It is discouraging that USDA ignored the voices of thousands of farmers, scientists, and concerned individuals who took the time to submit comments in opposition to the 2,4-D GMO seed technology. While we've seen grassroots activism succeed on many fronts, the USDA is simply too deep in the pockets of the biotech industry to respond to our outcry. http://farmandranchfreedom.org/usda-approval-24d-resistant-crops/ My guess is these resistance crops fail, giving more research grants to big chemical companies so they can create another chemical laden seed to sell. Ad infinitum.
I'm done for the moment. There isn't a lot little guys like us can do about this crap other than refuse to buy these products and to teach our children and friends. Hopefully when enough people quit buying these items they slowly start to disappear from market shelves.
Have you seen the Russell Crowe movie Noah? Look at the setting in the opening scenes. The earth is barren, devoid of vegetation. That is what I personally see as the outcome of mans greed and his manipulations of genetics. There is a fine balance in nature, and it only takes a small change to tip the scales one way or another.
\t \tGMOs: Respected Analyst Says They Could Destroy Life on the Planet August 26, 2014 Print This Post Invoking the risk of famine as a justification for GMOs is “a deceitful strategy, no different from…Russian roulette,†according to the report.Action Alert! Nassim Nicholas Taleb is a scholar, statistician, Wall Street analyst and advisor, professor at New York University, and the bestselling author ofFooled by Randomness and The Black Swan: The Impact of the Highly Improbable. He predicted the 2008 financial crisis by pointing out that commonly used risk models were wrong. (He was correct, and he became quite wealthy from the strategic financial decisions he made at that time.) Now his analysis of our use of genetically modified organisms shows that GMOs could cause “an irreversible termination of life at some scale, which could be the planet.†Taleb and his two co-authors argue that calling the GMO approach “scientific†betrays “a very poor-indeed warped-understanding of probabilistic payoffs and risk management.†Taleb believes GMOs fall squarely under the rule that we should always err on the side of caution if something is really dangerous. This is not just because of potential harm to the consumer, but because of systemic risk to the system, which in this case is the ecosystem that supports all life on the planet: Top-down modifications to the system (through GMOs) are categorically and statistically different from bottom-up ones (regular farming, progressive tinkering with crops, etc.). There is no comparison between the tinkering of selective breeding and the top-down engineering of arbitrarily taking a gene from an organism and putting it into another. The interdependence of all things in nature, Taleb points out, dramatically amplifies risks that may initially seem small when studied in isolation. Tiny genetic errors on the local scale could cause considerable-and even irreversible-environmental damage when the local is exported to the global. The lack of understanding of basic statistical principles, he says, is what leads GMO supporters astray: The interdependence of components [in nature] lead to aggregate variations becoming much more severe than individual ones….Whether components are independent or interdependent matters a lot to systemic disasters such as pandemics or generalized crises. The interdependence increases the probability of ruin, to the point of certainty. The problem is that the general public, and indeed most policy analysts, are ill-equipped to understand the statistical mathematics of risk. But as Brian Stoffel explains in his helpful article on Taleb's research, we can assume that each genetically engineered seed carries a risk-albeit a very tiny risk-that in the intricately interdependent web of nature, the GMO seed might somehow eventually lead to a catastrophic breakdown of the ecosystem we rely on for life. Let's call it a 0.1% chance, just for the sake of illustration. All by itself, that risk seems totally acceptable. But with each new seed that's developed, the risk gets greater and greater, and over time, we could hit “the ecocide barrierâ€: Critics say, “But risk is inherent in everything. We can't just be paralyzed by fear and not progress!†Taleb responds that the risk of “generalized human extinction†is absolutely not “inherent in everything.†That's because most consequences are localized, not systemic. And progress can be made using bottom-up techniques that have worked for eons. While quite a few countries have banned GMOs because of their risk to human health and the environment, the US lags behind. Politicians complain that we don't have the full picture on GMOs and therefore shouldn't ban them-but that's because of the lack of human safety studies being performed on GMOs in the US, and because GM companies keep a lot of their data proprietary, that is, concealed from the public. Consider the implications of keeping it secret: if the research finds GMOs to be harmless, wouldn't that be something you'd want to shout from the rooftops, if you were Monsanto? There is, however, clear evidence that GMOs pose risks (such as increased herbicide use) that could easily destabilize ecosystems, pose grave dangers to human health, and all without much benefit to the farmer or indeed anyone but the manufacturer: A study found that pigs fed GM feed had higher rates of severe stomach inflammation and developed heavier uteruses. Glyphosate (Monsanto's Roundup herbicide) caused increased fungal infections and lowercrop yields on GM plants-the very plants that had been genetically engineered to resist it, according to a study by Brazilian researchers. Higher residues of glyphosate have been found in GM soy. Some independent researchers found that glyphosate induced morphological changes in frogs, and had a negative effect on human gut bacteria. Our fact sheet on GMO risks offers much more evidence of ecological harm. Action Alert! Write to the USDA and ask the agency to do, for the first time, detailed statistical analyses of ecological risks when considering the deregulation of GM crops
Sometimes one has to read between the lines of the MSM. Kinda interesting to note isn't it? Monsanto in Ukraine: IMF loan for Ukraine may give GMO giant a backdoor into EU
"When Fracking and Free Speach Collide A defamation case against a man who claimed fracking polluted his water highlights free-speech issues <div>September 10, 2014 5:00AM ET by Peter Moskowitz <span> <span> @ptrmsk </span> </span> </div>What started as a short YouTube video and a couple of local news interviews about a Texas landowner being able to light his water on fire has ballooned into a free speech fight that's being closely watched by anti-fracking activists across the country. Steve Lipsky has complained for years that fracking company Range Resources polluted his drinking water and streams that run through his property. The company sued him in 2011 for defaming its reputation for environmental stewardship. Now Lipsky will have a chance to argue his case in front of the Texas Supreme Court, local paper The Texas Tribune reported this week. The court will decide whether Lipsky's right to free speech renders Range's defamation case moot. If the court rules in Lipsky's favor, Range's lawsuit will be thrown out. If that doesn't happen, Lipsky may be on the hook for $3 million. The case won't be heard until December, but environmentalists are already drawing parallels between it and other incidents across the U.S. in which hydraulic fracturing companies and local anti-fracking activists have butted heads. Lipsky's supporters say his case adds to a growing list of instances that show governments and courts are too quick to kowtow to industry demands. But if Lipsky wins, they say it could embolden the anti-fracking movement across the country by letting activists know they're free to badmouth fracking companies without fear of retribution. “Range has a right to protect its reputation, but the speech they're complaining about is protected speech,†Lipsky's lawyer Joe Sibley said. “If we're going to allow companies to sue people for defamation every time they don't like what's being said, then that basically allows corporations to silence public participation.†Lipsky's saga began in 2010, when he found that he could ignite the wells and streams on his property in Parker County by holding a lighter up to them. He uploaded videos of his discovery to YouTube, was interviewed by local reporters and was featured in the documentary “Gasland Part II.†Lipsky blamed drilling by Range Resources in the nearby Barnett Shale for his misfortune. The Environmental Protection Agency agreed and ordered Range to pay for fresh drinking water for Lipsky and one of his neighbors. But then the EPA dropped its investigation without giving reason, and the Texas Railroad Commission - which oversees fracking in the state - said there was insufficient evidence linking Range to the contamination. Given the apparent lack of evidence, Range has accused Lipsky of defaming the company. The Texas Supreme Court will have to look into whether a 2011 tort reform law would allow the court to dismiss Range's case before it is heard in a lower court. But regardless of what the court decides, Lipsky's lawyer says the damage has already been done. “Defending yourself against a big company is a daunting task for most people,†said Sibley. “[Range] is showing it's willing to try to ruin someone with litigation.†Range did not return requests for comment for this story. Sibley and others say Lipsky's case is just one example of fracking companies attempting to silence their opposition. In 2013 documents emerged showing that Range Resources settled a court case with a family near Pittsburgh who said their land was contaminated by a Range well. The settlement included $750,000 for the family and a provision that the family not disparage the company and not speak negatively about the entire gas formation in Pennsylvania called the Marcellus Shale. While the settlement drew a lot of media attention, experts say it wasn't unique - but could still violate the First Amendment. “The court is giving the OK to take an entire topic out of public debate,†said Lee Rowland, a free speech attorney at the American Civil Liberties Union. “The implications of a gag order that broad are far ranging and absurd. Courts shouldn't be honoring those kinds of gag orders.†But gag orders are only the most common way the industry and its supporters have tried to quash opposition, according to activists. Last year the town board of Sanford, New York, barred discussion of fracking at its public meetings. The decision was unanimous and came after the board announced its desire to attract oil and gas companies to the region. The National Resource Defense Council (NRDC) sued, and the town withdrew its order. And in perhaps the most infamous case, Vera Scroggins, an anti-fracking activist who gave tours of fracking sites in Pennsylvania, was sued by Cabot Oil & Gas in 2013 for trespassing and barred from setting foot on land it owned or leased. Unfortunately for Scroggins, that land included the houses of several of her friends, a hospital, malls and grocery stores - 40 percent of the county. Scroggins has since gotten a judge to loosen the restriction, but she says the injunction was proof that companies will work to silence those they disagree with. “It's almost like you're on a blacklist,†she said. “We get punished because we don't support the party line.†While examples like Scroggins' and Lipsky's are outliers, experts say, as fracking continues to expand in states like Pennsylvania and Texas, there will likely be more cases of people alleging that gas companies violated their constitutional freedoms. “Gas companies aren't making a consumer product in the same way Walmart does, so they don't have to worry about a brand in the same way Walmart does,†said Kate Sinding, a senior attorney at the NRDC. “That makes them a little more free to engage in tactics that other companies wouldn't dare to.â€
Brazil farmers say GMO corn no longer resistant to pests [SIZE=14.4444446563721px]Hopefully this is Mother Nature showing Man that no matter how much He fucks with seed genetics that She will have her own way in the long run. Thats what it sounds like to me.[/SIZE] [SIZE=14.4444446563721px]j[/SIZE]
Why the EU spent 300 Euros over 10 years of research by 100s their best anti-GMO scientists: <blockquote>"This new publication presents the results of 50 projects, involving more than 400 research groups and representing European research grants of some EUR 200 million. This figure brings the total Commission funding of research on GMO safety to more than EUR 300 million since its inception in 1982 in the Biomolecular Engineering programme. . . . The main conclusion to be drawn from the efforts of more than 130 research projects, covering a period of more than 25 years of research, and involving more than 500 independent research groups, is that biotechnology, and in particular GMOs, are not per se more risky than e.g. conventional plant breeding technologies." </blockquote>So many people are scared of what they do not understand. Not only that they push "studies" and reports by their own versions of environmentalist Monsantos. http://fafdl.org/gmobb/about-those-industry-funded-gmo-studies/ Educate yourselves and you may not be so scared each night. Sleep well, Monsanto is making a better world and a great profit from it. Where-in lies the rub with leftists and the anti-corporation crowd (the most hypcritical group on earth).