Showing posts with label Monsanto. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Monsanto. Show all posts

Friday, October 10, 2014

9.70

UPDATE - 6 September 2013

The Colombian government has just announced that it is suspending Resolution 970, which was the subject of massive public outcry in recent weeks thanks to the huge peasant mobilisation launched on 19 August. The Resolution, adopted in 2010 and sometimes referred to as Law 970, made it illegal for Colombian farmers to save seeds in order for private companies and transnational corporations to gain monopoly control over the market.
 
Resolution 970 will be suspended for a period of two years, and this will only apply to domestically produced seeds (not imports). The government says it will use the two-year freeze to write new rules on seed use "which will not affect small farmers".

This is NOT a reversal of policy. It is a public statement from the government. People are waiting to see it written into a document with legal force, and are reiterating calls for the Resolution to be repealed instead.

Sources (in Spanish):
On 19 August, Colombian farmers' organisations initiated a massive nationwide strike. They blocked roads, dumped milk on cars and basically stopped producing food for the cities. The problem? Farmers are being driven out of existence by the government's policies.
The state provides almost no support for the small-scale farming sector.
1 Instead, it embraces a social and economic model that serves the interests of a wealthy elite minority. Recent free trade agreements (FTAs) signed with the US and the EU are undercutting Colombian producers, who can't compete with subsidised imports.
2 The Colombian government has been actively promoting land grabbing by large corporations, many of them foreign (Monica Semillas from Brazil, Merhav from Israel, Cargill from the US), to promote export-oriented agribusiness at the expense of family farming oriented towards food sovereignty.

Sunday, July 6, 2014

Peak Food

Peak food: The U.N.'s Food Price Index reached a new high in February 2011, exacerbating poverty in developing countries and creating potential for civil unrest. "Peak water" entered the popular lexicon in 2010, after two scientists classified threats to human use of rivers and underground aquifers, and to ecological stability. Peak coffee, peak chocolate, peak rare earth metals, peak travel have all followed suit. It's "peak" season.
Two simple trends are driving these concerns. The world has more people than ever, and more of those people than ever are breaking out of abject poverty and competing in a global market for goods and resources.
The human population passed 7 billion last year, and the U.N. projects it will top 9.3 billion by 2050. Most of the growth is occurring in Asia, where the population is on track to balloon 40 percent, to 8 billion, by midcentury.
An even bigger human accomplishment, and cause for worry, is the rise of the middle class. It's expected to nearly triple in the next two decades, to 4.9 billion people in 2030 from 1.8 billion today, according to the Organization for Economic Cooperation & Development. The Global Footprint Network, which developed a resource-accounting tool for countries, puts it this way: At current consumption rates, we'll need two Earths by 2030.



Are We About to Hit Peak Fertilizer?

By Occupy Monsanto

This article, Are We About to Hit Peak Fertilizer?, is syndicated from http://www.occupymonsanto360.org and is reposted here with permission.

http://www.occupymonsanto360.org (http://s.tt/1w8r1)

Everyone knows about how the advent of artificial fertilizers and pest controls altered the face of agriculture around the world during the Green Revolution more than half a century ago. And while few people are fully ignorant of the damage done to the environment through the use of these synthetic pesticides (and fertilizers), not many people have given much any thought to what will happen when we run out of these vital resources; which is nearing much faster than you might have guessed.

Sunday, October 27, 2013

Food Safety



Published on May 23, 2013

The world's leading Scientists, Physicians, Attorneys, Politicians and Environmental Activists expose the corruption and dangers surrounding the widespread use of Genetically Modified Organisms in the new feature length documentary, "Seeds of Death: Unveiling the Lies of GMOs".

Senior Executive Producer / Writer / Director: Gary Null PhD
Executive Producer/Writer/Co-Director: Richard Polonetsky
Producers: Paola Bossola, Richard Gale, James Spruill, Patrick Thompson, Valerie Van Cleve
Editors: James Spruill, Patrick Thompson, Richie Williamson, Nick Palm
Music: Kevin MacLeod (Incompetech.com), Armando Guarnera
Graphics: Jay Graygor

Monsanto's GMO sweet corn



Published on Aug 1, 2013
14 year old Rachel Parent debates Kevin O'Leary on the issue of Genetically Modified Food
Donate to the cause at Rachel's website: http://www.gmo-news.com
Canadian Biotechnology Action Network: www.cban.ca
petition for mandatory GMO food labelling: http://www.avaaz.org/en/petition/Brin...
O'Leary knocks himself out: http://youtu.be/OFS035Kdo-s
Rachel's challenge to O'Leary: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0XcXK...
original broadcast on CBC: If you want to see CBC's "The Lang O'Leary Exchange" with the commercials: http://www.cbc.ca/player/News/TV+Show...






Take Action!
Clicking here will automatically add your name to this to Walmart CEO Mike Duke:
"Walmart: Live up to your commitment to consumer safety, and reject Monsanto's untested and potentially toxic genetically-modified sweet corn before it's planted this spring."




Automatically add your name:




Take action now!
CREDO Action | more than a network, a movement.
Dear Friend,
This spring, Monsanto's GMO sweet corn — their first product for direct human consumption — will be getting planted for the first time.
Then it will be sold, unlabeled, in a grocery store near you.
What would it take to stop it? It would take the largest food retailer in the country rejecting Monsanto's untested, potentially toxic corn.
In response to pressure from more than 250,000 CREDO Activists and others last fall, Trader Joes, Whole Foods and General Mills all committed not to sell Monsanto's sweet corn.1
But not Walmart.
Walmart, wrote to us that "nothing is more important than the safety and satisfaction of our customers." But that's just not consistent with selling this unlabeled GMO sweet corn, which contains three genetic modifications — including the insecticide Bt — and hasn't been tested to prove it is safe for humans to eat.2
Walmart could make a powerful statement for consumer safety by rejecting Monsanto's GMO sweet corn, but they won't do it unless we put very public pressure on the company.
This corn is Monsanto's first foray into designing GMO foods that could wind up whole on your plate. If it's successful, we can be sure that it will just be the beginning for Monsanto, who already produces roughly 90% of GMO seeds around the globe.
As the largest food retailer, and even the largest seller of organic foods, Walmart can set an important precedent that could keep Monsanto's GMO sweet corn, and any future GMO foods, from taking root.
If Walmart really means that nothing is more important than their customers safety then they need to take a stand now.
Click below to automatically sign the petition:
http://act.credoaction.com/r/?r=5535403&id=35505-5154581-RZHw_fx&t=10
Thanks for fighting for safe and healthy food.
Elijah Zarlin, Campaign Manager
CREDO Action from Working Assets


Sunday, October 20, 2013

Monsanto

Published time: April 04, 2013 16:34
Edited time: April 05, 2013 12:28  

 
Monsanto on Wednesday reported that its net income rose 22 percent to $1.48 billion, or $2.74 a share, in a one-year period. The profit increase, which occurred in the three-month period through February, marked a new record for the lucrative biotech company. Revenue rose 15 percent to $5.47 billion, much of which came from the sales of genetically modified corn seeds, particularly those sold in emerging markets like Brazil, Argentina, and other Latin American countries.

Saturday, July 14, 2012

Warning On Using Biotech Seeds

NPR's Dan Charles reports in his article, "Insect Experts Issue 'Urgent' Warning On Using Biotech Seeds," that 22 of the nation's top experts on corn pests have sent a letter to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency asking for urgent action to address the failure of Monsanto's genetically engineered insecticide-producing Bt crops.


a major increase in the use of 2,4-D

Ready for what's next from Dow Chemicals? GE crops modified to be resistant to the herbicide that's a main ingredient in Agent Orange!
The herbicide, 2,4-D, is linked to cancer, reproductive problems, and Parkinson's and is banned entirely in parts of Canada and Europe. And yet the USDA seems ready to approve the new GMO Corn and Soybeans, unleashing a major increase in the use of 2,4-D.1
Now, the EPA is considering stepping in to stop or restrict the application of 2,4-D, which would be a major blow to Dow's Agent Orange veggies. Can you urge EPA to reject Dow's plans to spray this incredibly toxic herbicide?
If you care about food safety or the environment, you know about Roundup, developed by Monsanto, and so toxic to plants that Monsanto had to engineer "Roundup Ready" crops that wouldn't be killed when farmers applied Roundup to their fields.
From 1996, when Roundup Ready crops were introduced in the US, through 2008, there was a 383 million pound increase in the use of herbicides. Now, it turns out that weeds are becoming Roundup resistant, requiring the use of even stronger pesticides (like 2,4-D) and the engineering of crops that can withstand their use.
That's where Dow's "2,4-D resistant" corn comes in.  Because the corn will be resistant to 2,4-D, farmers will be able to blast their fields with the main ingredient in Agent Orange.  We can expect the increase in the use of 2,4-D to be enormous.2
Big Ag armed with 2,4-D is a scary scenario — 2,4-D has been shown to be contaminated with dioxins, is linked to numerous health problems, is highly likely to drift onto neighboring fields, is frequently found in groundwater, and is likely to already be negatively impacting several species of at-risk animals. But despite this, the USDA has not done any meaningful review of possible consequences to human health, the environment, or other farms that could result from approving "2,4-D resistant," genetically engineered corn.
With the USDA seemingly ready to approve the 2,4-D resistant corn, the EPA's involvement is crucial. If the EPA stands strong, and rejects 2,4-D, they can effectively kill Dow's 2,4-D resistant corn and soy. Please take action now:
http://act.credoaction.com/r/?r=6883009&p=poison_corn&id=42033-5154581-al3UbKx&t=6
Thanks for fighting to keep dangerous pesticides out of our food system,
Heidi Hess, Campaign Manager
CREDO Action from Working Assets

Friday, July 13, 2012

PERCY SCHMEISER

Monsanto Canada Inc. v. Schmeiser [2004] 1 S.C.R. 902, 2004 SCC 34 is a leading Supreme Court of Canada case on patent rights for biotechnology. The court heard the question of whether growing genetically modified plants constitutes "use" of the patented invention of genetically modified plant cells. By a narrow 5-4 majority, the court ruled that it does. The case drew worldwide attention.


DAVID VERSUS MONSANTO




TO ORDER:
TEL: +49-89-52 66 01
FAX: +49-89-523 47 42

Imagine that a storm blows across your garden - and that now, without your knowledge and without your consent, foreign and genetically-manipulated seeds are in your vegetable patch which you have nourished and maintained for many years. A few days later, representatives of a multi-national corporate group pay you a visit at home, demand that you surrender your vegetables and file a criminal complaint against you requesting a fine a $20,000 USD against you - for the illegal use of patented and genetically-manipulated seeds.
What's more: The court finds for the corporate group!
 
Yet, you fight back....

This short story is no utopia - rather, around the world, the bitter truth. It is also the true experience of the family of Percy and Louise Schmeiser in Canada, also winners of the Alternative Nobel Prize, who meanwhile have been fighting the chemicals and seed manufacturer Monsanto since 1996. Nowadays, nearly three-fourths of genetically-manipulated plants harvested worldwide originate from Monsanto's labs. Monsanto is a U.S. based corporate group which calls the dismal inventions such as DDT, PCB and Agent Orange its own. In its efforts to gain absolute hegemony over plants - from the field all the way to teh consumer's plate - Monsanto knows no qualms. The farmers Tony Rush, David Runyon and Marc Loiselle also learned the hard way what it means to be confronted with Monsanto's methods of doing business, as did thousands of other farmers worldwide.

They and the Schmeisers are not just fighting against Monsanto - and with that, for the continuation of their livelihood as farmers - but also for the right to freedom of speech and the right to their property.

Yet above all, they are campaigning for the future of their children and grandchildren - so that they too, will have a chance to grow up in a world without genetically-manipulated food.

This film is reassuring...reassuring to all who fear that as an individual, no one would have any power to confront policy makers, large corporations or the business world. "David vs. Monsanto" proves the opposite.

DIRECTOR - Bertram Verhaag - 
DIRECTOR OF PHOTOGRAPHY - Waldemar Hauschild - 
FILM EDITOR - Verena Schonauer - 
SOUND - Zoltan Ravasz VDT - 
ASSISTANT - Isabel Theiler, Kim Koch - 
MUSIC - Bauer Karger Holzapfel

PRODUCED BY DENKMAL - FILM - GmbH, MUNICH
TO ORDER:
TEL: +49-89-52 66 01
FAX: +49-89-523 47 42

Thursday, March 29, 2012

Brazil's economic links with China

URUAÇU, Brazil — When the Chinese came looking for more soybeans here last year, they inquired about buying land — lots of it.
Daniel Kfouri for The New York Times
A new railroad line in Uruaçu, Brazil, will carry soybeans to a port for shipping to China. Brazil's economic links with China have helped it prosper, but Brazil is selling mostly raw materials.
Daniel Kfouri for The New York Times
A farmer harvested soy in Uruaçu, Brazil.

Officials in this farming area would not sell the hundreds of thousands of acres needed. Undeterred, the Chinese pursued a different strategy: providing credit to farmers and potentially tripling the soybeans grown here to feed chickens and hogs back in China.

“They need the soy more than anyone,” said Edimilson Santana, a farmer in the small town of Uruaçu. “This could be a new beginning for farmers here.”

The $7 billion agreement signed last month — to produce six million tons of soybeans a year — is one of several struck in recent weeks as China hurries to shore up its food security and offset its growing reliance on crops from the United States by pursuing vast tracts of Latin America’s agricultural heartland.
Even as Brazil, Argentina and other nations move to impose limits on farmland purchases by foreigners, the Chinese are seeking to more directly control production themselves, taking their nation’s fervor for agricultural self-sufficiency overseas.

“They are moving in,” said Carlo Lovatelli, president of the Brazilian Association of Vegetable Oil Industries. “They are looking for land, looking for reliable partners. But what they would like to do is run the show alone.”

While many welcome the investments, the aggressive push comes as Brazilian officials have begun questioning the “strategic partnership” with China encouraged by former President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva. The Chinese have become so important to Brazil’s economy that it cannot do without them — and that is precisely what is making Brazil increasingly uneasy.

“One thing the world can be sure of: there is no going back,” Mr. da Silva said while visiting Beijing in 2009.
China has become Brazil’s biggest trading partner, buying ever increasing volumes of soybeans and iron ore, while investing billions in Brazil’s energy sector. The demand has helped fuel an economic boom here that has lifted more than 20 million Brazilians from extreme poverty and brought economic stability to a country accustomed to periodic crises.

Yet some experts say the partnership has devolved into a classic neo-colonial relationship in which China has the upper hand. Nearly 84 percent of Brazil’s exports to China last year were raw materials, up from 68 percent in 2000. But about 98 percent of China’s exports to Brazil are manufactured products — including the latest, low-priced cars for Brazil’s emerging middle class — that are beating down Brazil’s industrial sector.

“The relationship has been very unbalanced,” said Rubens Ricupero, a former Brazilian diplomat and finance minister. “There has been a clear lack of strategy on the Brazilian side.”

While visiting China last month, Brazil’s new president, Dilma Rousseff, emphasized the need to sell higher-value products to China, and she has edged closer to the United States. “It is not by accident that there is a sort of effort to revalue the relationship with the United States,” said Paulo Sotero, director of the Brazil Institute at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars. “China exposes Brazil’s vulnerabilities more than any other country in the world.”

China’s moves to buy land have made officials nervous. Last August, Luís Inácio Adams, Brazil’s attorney general, reinterpreted a 1971 law, making it significantly harder for foreigners to buy land in Brazil. Argentina’s president, Cristina Fernández de Kirchner, followed suit last month, sending a law to Congress limiting the size and concentration of rural land foreigners could own.

Mr. Adams said his decision was not a direct result of land-buying by China, but he noted that huge “land grabs” in Latin America and sub-Saharan Africa, including China’s attempt to lease about three million acres in the Philippines, had alarmed Brazilian officials.

“Nothing is preventing investment from happening, but it will be regulated,” Mr. Adams said.
A World Bank study last year said that volatile food prices had brought a “rising tide” of large-scale farmland purchases in developing nations, and that China was among a small group of countries making most of the purchases.

Foreigners own an estimated 11 percent of productive land in Argentina, according to the Argentine Agriculture Federation. In Brazil, one government study estimated that foreigners owned land equivalent to about 20 percent of São Paulo State.

International investors have criticized the restrictions. At least $15 billion in farming and forestry projects in Brazil have been suspended since the government’s limits, according to Agroconsult, a Brazilian agricultural consultancy.

“The tightening of land purchases by foreigners is really a step backwards into a Jurassic mentality of counterproductive nationalism,” said Charles Tang, president of the Brazil-China Chamber of Commerce, saying that American farmers had bought sizable plots in Brazil in recent years, with little uproar.
Responding to the criticism, Brazil’s agriculture minister said this month that Brazil might start leasing farmland to foreigners, given the barriers to ownership.

China itself does not allow private ownership of farmland, and it cautioned local governments against granting large-scale or long-term leases to companies in a 2001 directive. China also bans foreign companies from buying mines and oil fields.

But as more of its people eat meat, China is expected to increase its soybean imports, mostly for animal feed, by more than 50 percent by 2020, according to the United States Department of Agriculture. Last month, Chongqing Grains signed a $2.5 billion agreement to produce soybeans in the Brazilian state of Bahia. Last October, a Chinese group agreed to develop about 500,000 acres of farmland in Río Negro Province in Argentina.

In both cases, Chinese officials proposed buying large tracts of land before local officials steered them toward production agreements.

“We are never going to sell the land,” said Juan Manuel Accatino, the minister of production in Río Negro.
Brian Willott, an American farmer who came to Brazil in 2003, said Chinese interest in buying farms had not abated. “Everywhere you go to look at a farm they say, ‘We are considering selling to the Chinese,’ ” he said.
In Goiás State, nearly 70 percent of the soy grown went to the Chinese last year, and the Chinese are seeking to use about 20 million acres of pastureland that has not been cultivated for decades.
“For them, the faster the better,” said Antônio de Lima, Goiás’ agriculture minister.
Farmers here say they share Chinese officials’ goal of breaking the stranglehold of international trading companies like Cargill and Archer Daniels Midland.

But Tan Lin, a manager at the Chinese company involved in Goiás, said he doubted Chinese companies were ready to replace them.

“I don’t see that the Chinese companies working here have that expertise yet,” Mr. Tan said. But “if you can do that, it is good, of course.”


Reporting was contributed by Myrna Domit from São Paulo, Brazil, Charles Newbery from Buenos Aires, David Barboza from Shanghai and Keith Bradsher from Hong Kong