In 2007, Carol Goland drove home from a meeting of the Dairy Labeling Advisory Committee in Reynoldsburg feeling optimistic. There had been heated debate over a seemingly simple issue: the fairest and most informative way to label dairy products made from cows that have not been injected with a controversial growth hormone intended to increase milk production.

The farmers using the hormone — commonly known as rBGH (recombinant bovine growth hormone), but also rBST (recombinant bovine somatotrophin) — were worried about losing business to competitors labeling their products as “rBGH-free.” Goland, executive director of the Ohio Ecological Food and Farm Association, could empathize. Still, she’d argued — successfully, it would turn out — that Ohio consumers have the right to know how their food is produced.

But the matter did not stay settled. In February 2008, Ohio Department of Agriculture (ODA) head Robert Boggs issued a ruling that tilted the labeling issue in favor of farmers using rBGH.

Since 1994, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration has recommended that labels touting “rBGH-free” also state that the FDA has determined that “no significant difference has been shown between milk derived from rBST-supplemented and non-rBST supplemented cows.” But the FDA remained silent on details like size and placement of the disclaimer.

this article is VERY long… read more:
http://www.clevescene.com/cleveland/got-artificial-hormoned-milk/Content?oid=1638383

At the intersection of cocaine and Roundup in rural South America, Monsanto and the U.S. government are struggling to keep up appearances. That’s becoming more and more difficult as the unanticipated hazards of genetic modification become clearer.

Back in April, Argentinean embryologist Andrés Carrasco gave an interview with a Buenos Aires newspaper describing his recent findings suggesting the chemical glyphosate, a chemical herbicide widely used in agriculture as well as in U.S. anti-narcotic efforts, could cause defects in fetuses in much smaller doses than those to which peasants and farmers in his country were already being exposed. Loud calls for a ban on the substance were issued by Argentinean environmental lawyers, and the country’s Ministry of Defense banned the planting of glyphosate-resistant soya crops in its fields.

Then came the backlash. An article in an Argentinean paper recently reported that Carrasco was assaulted in a way he described as “violent” by four men associated with agricultural interests:

Two of the men were said to be members of an agrochemical industry body but refused to give their names. The other two claimed to be a lawyer and notary. They apparently interrogated Dr. Carrasco and demanded to see details of the experiments. They left a card Basílico, Andrada & Santurio, attorneys on behalf of Felipe Alejandro Noël.

It’s still unclear who these people are. But the interest in keeping such information quiet or discrediting Carrasco and his findings are strongest with Monsanto, the agricultural company who first patented a glyphosate product (sold as Roundup) and also created genetically-modified crops specifically to resist the herbicide.

http://blog.buzzflash.com/analysis/894

The Pitchfork Rebellion founder involved in a 2008 police conflict puts Monsanto “on trial”

BY KAREN MCCOWAN
The Register-Guard
Appeared in print: Sunday, Aug 30, 2009

News Updates: Story

The Pitchfork Rebellion, organized to restrict or halt aerial herbicide spraying on Oregon’s forests, went to the local doorstep of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security on Saturday to lampoon what they said were the agency’s ties to pesticide manufacturer Monsanto.

Triangle Lake area resident Day Owen, a co-founder of the activist group, donned a jester’s hat to preside over mock trials of Monsanto and the state Department of Forestry before a crowd of more than 100 people.

Owen’s wife, his daughter and neighbor Maya Gee also said they were personally affected after helicopters sprayed the Monsanto product Round-Up on forests near their farms in 2007. The women said they were sickened by their exposure to drifted spray, immediately suffering breathing problems and muscle weakness, followed by diarrhea, early and painful menstrual cycles, and muscle and joint pain lasting for months.

Owen accused the St. Louis-based multinational company of covering up evidence that the herbicide poses human health risks. According to Monsanto’s Web site, increased sales of Round-Up helped the corporation post record net sales of $11.4 billion in 2008.

Monsanto’s Web site also states that regulatory agencies around the world, including the United States Environmental Protection Agency, have concluded that glyphosate herbicides such as Round-Up “pose no unreasonable risks to human health and the environment when used according to label directions.”

Rally organizers set a nonviolent tone early in Saturday’s event, with Owen inviting attendees to walk in a circle around the building’s plaza to the song “We Are All in This Together.” Before beginning the music, he addressed several law enforcement officers monitoring the rally from inside the building, saying the song’s “we” included Eugene police and Homeland Security officers.

The last public encounter between Owen and those agencies did not end peacefully.

Owen was among several people arrested at a downtown Eugene anti-pesticide rally in May 2008, when a Eugene police officer used a Taser to apprehend a University of Oregon student later convicted of disorderly conduct and resisting arrest.

Owen said he was slammed to the grand and knocked unconscious after he questioned a different Eugene officer about use of the Taser when the student, Ian Van Ornum, was already face down on the ground.

Owen, who was never charged with a crime, said he was also kicked in the knee by a Homeland Security officer assisting in his arrest. Owen has filed an excessive use of force complaint with Eugene’s police auditor.

Eugene police testified at Van Ornum’s trial that they had been summoned to the downtown protest by a Department of Homeland Security agent monitoring the May 2008 demonstration. The agent, Tom Keedy, testified that he was there because Owen, a featured speaker, had urged people attending a March 2008 rally at the federal courthouse to “commit acts of civil disobedience … in a peaceful, nonviolent revolution.”

Owen on Saturday disputed that reason, charging that the federal agency was monitoring him because of the title of his talk at the May 2008 rally: “The Need to Reform Homeland Security.” He also said top officials at Homeland Security don’t want him to publicize what he alleges are ties between Homeland Security and Monsanto, including what he says is the agency’s financing of the development of genetically engineered food by Monsanto.

He called Monsanto and clear-cutting timber companies “the real bioterrorists.”

Rally participants were invited to launch a boycott of all crops treated with Round-Up and to sign a petition calling for aerial spraying buffer zones around homes and schools.

The following article is from GRAIN, also found at Organic Consumers Association website;

“Scientist Warning of Health Hazards of Monsanto’s Herbicide Receives Threats”

GRAIN: Seeds of Information, July 2009

Straight to the Source

“I expected a reaction but not such a violent one”

“In April 2009 Andrés Carrasco, an Argentinian embryologist, gave an interview to the leading Buenos Aires newspaper Página 12, in which he described the alarming results of a research project he is leading into the impact of the herbicide glyphosate on the foetuses of amphibians. Dr Carrasco, who works in the Ministry of Science’s Conicet (National Council of Scientific and Technical Investigations), said that their results suggested that the herbicide could cause brain, intestinal and heart defects in the foetuses. Glyphosate is the herbicide used in the cultivation of Monsanto’s genetically modified soya, which now covers some 18 million hectares, about half of Argentina’s arable land. [1]

Carrasco said that the doses of herbicide used in their study were “much lower than the levels used in the fumigations”. Indeed, as some weeds have become resistant to glyphosate, many farmers are greatly increasing the concentration of the herbicide. According to Página 12, this means that, in practice, the herbicide applied in the fields is between 50 and 1,540 times stronger than that used by Carrasco. The results in the study are confirming what peasant and indigenous communities – the people most affected by the spraying – have been denouncing for over a decade. The study also has profound consequences for the USA’s anti-narcotics strategy in Colombia, because the planes spray glyphosate, reinforced with additional chemicals, on the coca fields (and the peasants living among them).

Three days after the interview, the Association of Environmental Lawyers filed a petition with the Argentine Supreme Court, calling for a ban on the use and sale of glyphosate until its impact on health and on the environment had been investigated. Five days later the Ministry of Defense banned the planting of soya in its fields. This sparked a strong reaction from the multinational biotechnology companies and their supporters. Fearful that their most famous product, a symbol of the dominant farming model, would be banned, they mounted an unprecedented attack on Carrasco, ridiculing his research and even issuing personal threats. He was accused of inventing his whole investigation, as his results have not yet been peer-reviewed and published in a prestigious scientific journal.

http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2009/08/30/18620188.php

In a word, yes. To learn more, read on.

Mention the word organic and many people immediately see dollar signs. They may understand that organic products are grown without pesticides, are not genetically modified, and do not come from chemically fertilized fields. But they may not realize what those words really mean and certainly still do not understand or realize the added health benefits of eating this cleaner, more nutritious food. Mention organic milk or dairy products and the average consumer will cringe. That’s because organic dairy products typically cost a significant amount above conventional dairy and people still do not understand that there is more to think about than just the cost of the product.

According to an article in the New York Times from earlier this year, there is a glut of milk. This, obviously, affects the price paid to the farmer and ultimately the price paid for the product. In this economy many people welcome the slowly lowering price of dairy products. The difficulty comes from not understanding the difference between the types of products available. Conventional milk comes from cows who are confined to feedlot operations, crowded and not given access to fresh pasture. They are also still fed products that are pesticide, herbicide and drug laden as well as having genetically modified organisms (GMO) in their food. They may also be given large amounts of antibiotics. Natural milk comes from cows who are not given growth hormone (which increases their production of milk) however all the other conventional practices apply from crowding in feedlots to chemicals and GMO feed. Organic milk comes from cows who have none of the above. They are required to be pastured for at least part of the day and to have clean feed and a clean environment. This costs more and is part of the reason for the increased cost of the end product.

Dean Foods has now taken over a well-respected organic brand, Horizon. They are planning to change their production process and offer a “natural” product line aimed at young children. Dean Foods claims that this natural product will be less expensive and that they are providing a service to help consumers. The question is with a well-known, well-respected, profitable organic label already on the market why are they trying to adulterate the brand?

Unfortunately Dean’s previous foray into tampering with a well-respected organic brand, Silk organic soy milk, did not go well. According to an article found in the Organic Consumers Association newsletter Dean switched from organic, USA-grown to Chinese-sourced conventionally grown soy beans, relied on the name, and charged the same price. All without mentioning anything to consumers or retailers. In fact many of the retailers only noticed when their customers began to complain. Not only did Dean not lower the price of their reformulated “natural” soy products, they then turned around and raised the price on the organic soy that they were producing. One wonders how long it will be until they try the same profiteering methods with Horizon dairy. It is one way of increasing profits in the face of a glut of product.

In the end it all comes back to remaining vigilant and concerned about what you eat. Read the labels. That point is so important it bears repeating. Read the labels. Because you never know when a profit hungry huge agri-business producer will attempt to capitalize on brand identity to make a change that negatively affects your food and your health.

For more information:

Why chose organic milk
Organic Consumers Association

Vandana Shiva: Our Corporate Farming System Is to Blame for …

AlterNet – San Francisco, CA

Last month, the world got a glimpse of an epidemic that has hit India in the last decade when news reports alerted readers to the suicides of 1,500 farmers in the Indian state of Chattisgarh.

But this has been only a fraction of the suicides committed by farmers since 1997, says Vandana Shiva, Ph.D., a physicist, environmentalist, feminist, science policy advocate and director ofNavdanya and the Research Foundation for Science, Technology and Ecology.

While initial news reports blamed the recent suicides on falling water levels, Shiva explains that the suicide epidemic in India is a lot more complicated and far-reaching.

“Rapid increase in indebtedness is at the root of farmers’ taking their lives,” she wrote recently. “Debt is a reflection of a negative economy. Two factors have transformed agriculture from a positive economy into a negative economy for peasants: the rising of costs of production and the falling prices of farm commodities. Both these factors are rooted in the policies of trade liberalization and corporate globalization.”

At the heart of this is a circle of indebtedness that has resulted from the so-called Green Revolution, which exported industrial agricultural practices to places like India and in doing so, made seeds, a once-renewable resource for farmers, into something that had be bought from corporations.

“In 1998, the World Bank’s structural-adjustment policies forced India to open up its seed sector to global corporations like Cargill, Monsanto and Syngenta,” Shiva wrote. “The global corporations changed the input economy overnight. Farm-saved seeds were replaced by corporate seeds, which need fertilizers and pesticides and cannot be saved. … The shift from saved seed to corporate monopoly of the seed supply also represents a shift from biodiversity to monoculture in agriculture.”

In an interview with AlterNet, Shiva explained how Monsanto’s Bt cotton has exemplified what can go wrong with industrial agriculture; what happens to farming communities when traditional farming methods are replaced by corporate sponsored mono-cropping; and how to stem the tide of farmer suicides.

Farmers reveal: The truth about GM corn

News Today Online – Iloilo City, Iloilo, Philippines

Ms. Eloisa Bosito, MASIPAG-National Secretariat presented & discussed the results of the socio-economic study which shows that almost all of the farmers in both municipalities are dependent with the local financiers in the area, with 57% of the corn farmers in Dumarao are paying an interest of 7% per month. In Maayon, most of the farmers are paying as high as 10% per month. On the health aspect, most farmers do not wear protective gears while planting and spraying pesticides thus the results showed that some of the RR corn farmers suffered eye & skin irritation, dizziness and respiratory problems.

In summary, the study shows RR corn farmers incurred, high cost of production (seeds, fertilizers & herbicides), lower yield & net income, cycle of indebtedness and loss of control over the technology and high health risk with the use of Roundup herbicide.

VIEW: Harvest of suicide — Vandana Shiva

Daily Times – Lahore, Pakistan

Rising production costs and falling prices for their products is a recipe for indebtedness, and debt is the main cause of farmers’ suicides. This is why the suicides are most prevalent in the cotton belt on which the seed industries’ claim is rapidly becoming a stranglehold

An epidemic of farmers’ suicides has spread across four Indian states — Maharashtra, Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka, and Punjab — over the last decade. According to official data, more than 160,000 farmers have committed suicide in India since 1997.

These suicides are most frequent where farmers grow cotton, and appear directly linked to the presence of seed monopolies. For the supply of cotton seeds in India has increasingly slipped out of the hands of farmers and into the hands of global seed producers like Monsanto. These giant corporations have begun to control local seed companies through buyouts, joint ventures, and licensing arrangements, leading to seed monopolies.

Monsanto and the Suicides Amongst Indian Farmers

OpEdNews – Newtown, PA

Monsanto sells seeds that require one to purchase them year after year, and they require copious amounts of pesticide. They also require lots of water in a land that has little.

After reading the Monsanto rebuttals for their products, I decided to find out clearly why Indian farmers kill themselves and what that has to do with Monsanto. I had recalled that in Thailand many very poor farmers had gone so deeply into debt buying pesticides and GMO seeds that they had to leave their land or worse.  I recall that the king of Thailand encouraged them to use organic seeds, and showed them how to run a farm off the grid with all the machines run on the manure from the few animals on the farm.  Then I began hearing about the woes of the Indian farmer and I wondered if it was linked. It was.  Monsanto pulled the same thing on the poor Indian farmer.  The Indian government has not responded to the distress of these people caused, of course, by an American company, Monsanto.