Archive for the ‘GMO’s’ Category

Great News for CA Prop 37 – Just wanted to let you know that the California Democratic Executive Board just endorsed our campaign.  The opposition had been out in full-force to persuade these members to vote against us or go neutral.  This is a hugely important endorsement because this now means that we will be on their door-hangers and on their voting guide that goes out to all of the Democratic voters in the state.

 

Next up, the Republicans….

 

Why genetically engineered food is dangerous: New report by genetic engineers

Earth Open Source press release 17 June 2012

Aren’t critics of genetically engineered food anti-science? Isn’t the debate over GMOs (genetically modified organisms) a spat between emotional but ignorant activists on one hand and rational GM-supporting scientists on the other?

A new report released today, “GMO Myths and Truths”,[1] challenges these claims. The report presents a large body of peer-reviewed scientific and other authoritative evidence of the hazards to health and the environment posed by genetically engineered crops and organisms (GMOs).

Unusually, the initiative for the report came not from campaigners but from two genetic engineers who believe there are good scientific reasons to be wary of GM foods and crops.

One of the report’s authors, Dr Michael Antoniou of King’s College London School of Medicine in the UK, uses genetic engineering for medical applications but warns against its use in developing crops for human food and animal feed.

Dr Antoniou said: “GM crops are promoted on the basis of ambitious claims – that they are safe to eat, environmentally beneficial, increase yields, reduce reliance on pesticides, and can help solve world hunger.

“I felt what was needed was a collation of the evidence that addresses the technology from a scientific point of view.

“Research studies show that genetically modified crops have harmful effects on laboratory animals in feeding trials and on the environment during cultivation. They have increased the use of pesticides and have failed to increase yields. Our report concludes that there are safer and more effective alternatives to meeting the world’s food needs.”

Another author of the report, Dr John Fagan, is a former genetic engineer who in 1994 returned to the National Institutes of Health $614,000 in grant money due to concerns about the safety and ethics of the technology. He subsequently founded a GMO testing company.

Dr Fagan said: “Crop genetic engineering as practiced today is a crude, imprecise, and outmoded technology. It can create unexpected toxins or allergens in foods and affect their nutritional value. Recent advances point to better ways of using our knowledge of genomics to improve food crops, that do not involve GM.

“Over 75% of all GM crops are engineered to tolerate being sprayed with herbicide. This has led to the spread of herbicide-resistant superweeds and has resulted in massively increased exposure of farmers and communities to these toxic chemicals. Epidemiological studies suggest a link between herbicide use and birth defects and cancer.

Read more and download the report here: http://www.earthopensource.org/index.php/news/60-why-genetically-engineered-food-is-dangerous-new-report-by-genetic-engineers

 

 

Good op ed, from an Iowa paper:

 

Labeling is an act of accountability

Thank you for publishing the Los Angeles Times article on genetically modified foods (GMOs) and food labeling (“Battle over engineered food heading to voters,” July 22).

It is reassuring to know that nine of 10 U.S. consumers support labeling. Labeling is an act of accountability for both sides of the purchase transaction. The mainstream food industry claims to see little or no value for consumers in disclosing the ingredient facts, so they work diligently to retain the status quo, when in truth they are worried product brand reputations will be hurt by association with GMOs.

To food industry corporate leaders, I say stop fighting the information age. The initiative called Proposition 37 will win. Save the millions of dollars you plan to spend in opposition and lower your prices to more accurately represent the cost of your products. To the consumer, I say take control over how and why you purchase products. Be an informed consumer. Every dollar you spend is a vote.

Richard Hanson

Cedar Rapids

http://thegazette.com/2012/07/28/labeling-is-an-act-of-accountability/

Are GMOs Making You Fat?

While health experts and non-experts alike continue to take stabs at the solution to our nation’s obesity crisis, the answer still seems rather illusive.

Some say we need more exercise. Others suggest we need less food. Still others contend we need incentives and rewards to get off our duffs and lose the weight. But perhaps the answer is as simple as what’s in our lunch.

New research from the Norwegian School of Veterinary science is pointing the fat finger at genetically modified organisms, a term we now affectionately know as GMOs.

Researchers are suggesting that while GM foods may not be directly making us sick, they might be causing weight gain which can in turn contribute to illnesses.

To conduct the 90-day study, researchers studied how rats and salmon responded to genetically modified food. One group of rats was fed GM corn and scientists watched as they slowly got fatter than the group that was being fed non-GM foods. Researchers also noticed that the GMO rats ate more and grew faster.

A corresponding study examined how salmon reacted to GM foods by feeding one group GM food and another non-GM food. The result? The salmon that consumed GM foods experienced a number of adverse effects including weight gain, higher food consumption, and the inability to properly digest protein. They also developed a different intestinal microstructure and even saw changes in their immune systems.

In other words, the results didn’t come back in favor of GMOs.

Read the rest here: http://www.dietsinreview.com/diet_column/07/are-gmos-making-you-fat/

Read more, great Monday Mania posts here:  http://www.thehealthyhomeeconomist.com/monday-mania-7302012/

Read more, great Fat Tuesday posts here: http://realfoodforager.com/fat-tuesday-july-31-2012/

Read more, great Real Food Wednesday posts here: http://kellythekitchenkop.com/2012/08/real-food-wednesday-7252012.html

 

GMO Labeling in the News

 

 

 

Some great articles this week and a wonderful YouTube video too.  Mom

 

 

How California’s GM food referendum may change what America eats

The vast majority of Americans want genetically modified food labelled. If California passes November’s ballot, they could get it

 

In the US, an estimated 70% of items on supermarket shelves contain GM ingredients, commonly corn, soy and canola oil products. Photograph: David Sillitoe/Guardian

Last month, nearly 1m signatures were delivered to county registrars throughout California calling for a referendum on the labeling of genetically engineered foods. If the measure, “The Right to Know Genetically Engineered Food Act”, which will be on the ballot in November, passes, California will become the first state in the nation to require that GM foods be labeled as such on the package.

This is not the first time that the issue has come up in California. Several labeling laws have been drafted there, but none has made it out of legislative committee. Lawmakers in states like Vermont and Connecticut have also proposed labeling legislation, which has gone nowhere in the face of stiff industry opposition. And the US Congress has likewise seen sporadic, unsuccessful attempts to mandate GM food labeling since 1999.

What makes the referendum in California different is that, for the first time, voters and not politicians will be the ones to decide. And this has the food industry worried. Understandably so, since only one in four Americans is convinced that GMOs are “basically safe”, according to a survey conducted by the Mellman Group, and a big majority wants food containing GMOs to be labeled.

This is one of the few issues in America today that enjoys broad bipartisan support: 89% of Republicans and 90% of Democrats want genetically altered foods to be labeled, as they already are in 40 nations in Europe, in Brazil, and even in China. In 2007, then candidate Obama latched onto this popular issue saying that he would push for labeling – a promise the president has yet to keep.

In Europe, only 5% of food sold contains GMOs, a figure that continues to shrink. In the US, by contrast, an estimated 70% of the products on supermarket shelves include at least traces of genetically engineered crops – mostly, corn and soy byproducts and canola oil, which are ingredients in many of America’s processed foods.

Given their unpopularity with consumers, labeling “Frankenfoods” would undoubtedly hurt sales, possibly even forcing supermarkets to take them off their shelves. In one survey, just over half of those polled said they would not buy food that they knew to be genetically modified.

Read more here:  http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/jun/13/california-gm-referendum-change-america-food

 

This Hidden Food Poisons Your Family – Ignore These Cooked Up Lies

June 14 2012

By Alexis Baden-Mayer and Ronnie Cummins

What do a former mouthpiece for tobacco and big oil, a corporate-interest PR flack, and the regional director of a Monsanto-funded tort reform group have in common?

They’re all part of the anti-labeling PR team that will soon unleash a massive advertising and PR campaign in California, designed to scare voters into rejecting the California Right to Know Genetically Engineered Food Actⁱ.

In November, California voters will vote ‘yes’ or ‘no’ on a law to require mandatory labeling of all genetically engineered ingredients in processed foods, and ban the routine industry practice of mislabeling foods containing genetically engineered ingredients as ‘natural.’ Polls show that nearly 90 percent of the state’s voters plan to vote ‘yes.’ But when November rolls around, will voter support still be strong? Not if the biotech, agribusiness, and food manufacturers industries can help it.

It’s estimated that the opposition will spend $60 – $100 million to convince voters that genetically engineered foods are perfectly safeⁱⁱ. They’ll try to scare voters into believing that labeling will make food more expensive, that it will spark hundreds of lawsuits against small farmers and small businesses, and that it will contribute to world hunger.

None of this is true. On the contrary, studies suggest just the opposite.

Here’s what is true: The opposition has lined up some heavy-hitters and industry-funded front groups — masquerading as “grassroots” organizations — to help spin their anti-labeling propaganda machine. You have the right to know what’s in your food. You also have the right to know who is working tirelessly to prevent you from ever having that right – and who is signing their paychecks. Here’s a partial lineup of hired guns and organizations behind the anti-labeling advertising blitz soon to hit the California airwaves:

Tom Hiltachk: Monsanto’s Man in California

Tom Hiltachk is the PR gunslinger behind the Coalition Against the Costly Food Labeling Proposition (CACFLP), an anti-labeling front group. A partner at the Sacramento-based lobbying firm Bell, McAndrews & Hiltachk, Hiltachk is no stranger to front groups. With a little help from his friends at Philip Morris and R.J. Reynolds, he helped organize the Californians for Smokers’ Rights group to fight anti-smoking initiatives in the 1980s and 1990sⁱⁱⁱ.

He also helped form the Californians for Fair Business Policy^iv – a so-called “grassroots” organization, but actually a front group to mobilize business opposition to anti-smoking initiatives. That organization was funded by an “academic” front group^v – the Claremont Institute – which was in turn funded by tobacco companies.

Hitachk also has ties to Big Oil, including a colorful history with California’s Proposition 23, a conservative-backed ballot initiative launched – and defeated – in 2010.

The initiative, supported by Big Oil, would have repealed California’s clean energy and climate laws. Hiltachk was initially an ally of Ted Costa, a veteran right-wing activist behind many conservative initiatives, including Prop 23, and head of the group People’s Advocate^vi. But that relationship soured, according to ThinkProgress.org^vii, when Costa realized that Hiltachk’s main motivation was to funnel the $50 million that he hoped would be raised from oil companies and the Chamber of Commerce to himself and his friends.

Coalition Against Costly Food Labeling Proposition

The Coalition Against Costly Food Labeling Proposition (CACFLP)^viii runs a website called stopcostlyfoodlabeling.com, giving the impression that this is a group concerned about protecting consumers’ wallets. But the website lists only one consumer group in its coalition – Consumers Coalition of California. A search of the IRS.gov site turns up nothing on this group.

According to the coalitions’ 2009 990-Form published on Guidestar.org, this Torrance, California-based coalition describes itself as: “Research and oriented community education studies and info for residential and small businesses advocating on issues affecting major legislation.” The group has no website.

No other national or California-based consumer groups are listed on the CACFLP site.

CACFLP’s website does list some powerhouse coalition members, however, including the Grocery Manufacturers Association (GMA), whose members also include Monsanto, BASF, Bayer, Dow and Syngenta, as well as many large food processors and supermarket chains, and the Council for Biotechnology Information (CBI) , whose members include Monsanto, BASF, Bayer, Dow and Syngenta. Both groups are based in Washington DC. As of March, the GMA and the CBI had contributed a combined $625,000 to the CACFLP^ix – presumably to “protect” consumers from GMO labeling. Both groups have publicly opposed this initiative^x.

Monsanto recently made the following statement in support of CACFLP^xi:

“Monsanto is part of a growing coalition of California farmers, food producers, grocers, retailers, and others which has been formed to oppose the California measure. As a member of both GMA (Grocery Manufacturers Association) and BIO (Biotechnology Industry Organization), we support the organizations’ involvement in the California campaign to oppose the costly and extreme measure.”

Read more here: http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2012/06/14/organizations-on-anti-gmo-labeling.aspx?e_cid=20120614_DNL_art_1

 

And Oregon is starting up a ballot initiative too!

http://www.oregonrighttoknow.org/

Read more, great Monday Mania posts here: http://www.thehealthyhomeeconomist.com/monday-mania-6182012/

Read more, great Fat Tuesday posts here: http://realfoodforager.com/fat-tuesday-june-19-2012/

Read more, great Real Food Wednesday posts here: http://kellythekitchenkop.com/2012/06/real-food-wednesday-6132012.html

Read more, great Simple Lives Thursday posts here: http://gnowfglins.com/2012/06/21/simple-lives-thursday-101/#

 

 

Save

It seems that we are finally starting to pay more attention to our food. Where does our food come from? Who grows it, and how is it grown or raised? What’s in the food that we eat everyday? We are shifting in this country, towards really learning and caring about the quality of our food.

In the middle of last century, food became about convenience instead of nutrition and taste. We were all supposed to work as much as possible and eat our food from frozen packages, as this was considered an advancement of food technology.

Since the mid-1990s, we’ve been subjected to another supposed advancement in food technology: genetically modified organism (GMO) foods. Unfortunately this technology is often used without safety-testing and without consumer knowledge and consent.

A friend who just started learning about GMOs told me she felt badly that she didn’t know about them before now. It got me thinking, as I felt the same way when I first learned about what was going on with our food supply, how could I not know I was feeding my kids genetically modified food? And why didn’t I even know what they were?

The Non-GMO Project Shopping Guide says: “GMOs (or “genetically modified organisms”) are organisms that have been created through the gene-splicing techniques of biotechnology (also called genetic engineering, or GE). This relatively new science allows DNA from one species to be injected into another species in a laboratory, creating combinations of plant, animal, bacteria, and viral genes that do not occur in nature or through traditional crossbreeding methods. Virtually all commercial GMOs are bred to withstand direct application of herbicide and/or to produce an insecticide. None of the GMO traits currently on the market offer increased yield, drought tolerance, enhanced nutrition or any other consumer benefit. Studies, meanwhile, increasingly show a correlation between consumption of GMOs and an array of health risks.” (See http://www.nongmoproject.org/consumers/.)

Jeffrey Smith says, in The Big GMO Cover-Up: “Outside the carefully controlled laboratory setting, it is more difficult to confidently assign GMOs as the cause for a particular set of diseases, especially since there are no human clinical trials and no agency that even attempts to monitor GMO-related health problems among the population. ‘If there are problems,’ says biologist David Schubert, PhD, of the Salk Institute, ‘we will probably never know because the cause will not be traceable and many diseases take a very long time to develop.’”

“GM crops were widely introduced in 1996. Within nine years, the incidence of people in the US with three or more chronic diseases nearly doubled—from 7% to 13%. Visits to the emergency room due to allergies doubled from 1997 to 2002. And overall food related illnesses doubled from 1994 to 2001, according to the Centers for Disease Control. Obesity, diabetes, gastrointestinal disorders, and autism are also among the conditions that are skyrocketing in the US.” (See http://urbangardenmagazine.com/2009/11/the-big-gmo-cover-up-2/.)

So why didn’t we all know about GMOs? Because it seems as if Monsanto and the other biotech companies making them did not want us to know. Putting genetically modified organisms in our food was never presented to the American people; it was done without our knowledge or consent. The FDA—which, like the USDA, is now staffed with many former employees of Monsanto—allowed GMO seeds and food to be produced and marketed, based on the industries’ own assurance that their products are safe. Their basis for safety was that the seed was the same as the non-GMO seed, although at the same time they said it was also very different and that they should be able to patent it. (Genetically engineered seeds have NO consumer benefit. They only benefit the companies who hold the patents.)

There was never any safety testing done by the US government, and tests done elsewhere in the world have shown genetically engineered seed and the food grown from it to be unsafe and potentially dangerous. Our government (both political parties) have handed our food supply over to a private multi-national corporation. This is the corporation that gave us DDT and Agent Orange. They now own almost all of our commercial seed.

They are not doing this to “feed the world,” as their marketing campaign states; they are doing this to control our food supply in order to increase their profits. If these companies were creating GMOs for altruistic reasons, they would not be patenting their seeds, suing our farmers, or putting our seed cleaners out of business. Farmers have traditionally saved their seed to replant for the next year. They’ve done this for thousands of years. With all the commercial seed cleaners out of business, large farms can’t save their seeds anymore and have to buy new seed each year. (Read the excellent Vanity Fair article, “Monsanto’s Harvest of Fear”: http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2008/05/monsanto200805.)

Unless it’s organic, 80 percent of the processed foods in the supermarkets contain genetically engineered ingredients—mostly from soy, corn, canola, and sugar beets. These same foods are on the market in Europe without GE ingredients because the people spoke up and first demanded labeling, and also said they would not buy the food if it had GE ingredients.

Monsanto just got approval for genetically modified sweet corn, and they are working on genetically modifying chocolate (don’t mess with my chocolate!). They also say we should buy organic foods if we want to avoid GMOs, but their crops are starting to contaminate the organic crops. It’s time to stand up for our food supply and say NO to GMOs!

Don’t feel badly if you didn’t know about GMOs. It seems as if we were all kept in the dark intentionally, but we don’t have to stay in the dark. Educate yourself about genetically engineered food. Tell your family and friends. What we eat affects our health and the health of our children. It’s time to take back our food.

If you’re in California, you can join the effort to get Mandatory Labeling of Genetically Engineered Foods on the California ballot for November 2012. We have thousands of volunteers across the state and we have gotten enough signatures to get this on the ballot. Now we’re working on education and outreach. We have speakers and educational films that we can bring to your school, yoga studio, doctors office, or church.

To learn more, go to: http://www.Labelgmos.org; http://carighttoknow.org; http://www.responsibletechnology.org; and http://www.organicconsumers.org.

And watch, The Future of Food – link below.

 

 

Read more, great Monday Mania posts here:  http://www.thehealthyhomeeconomist.com/monday-mania-642012/

Read more, great Fat Tuesday posts here: http://realfoodforager.com/fat-tuesday-june-5-2012/

Read more, great Real Food Wednesday posts here: http://kellythekitchenkop.com/2012/06/real-food-wednesday-5302012.html

Read more, great Fight Back Friday posts here: http://www.foodrenegade.com/fight-back-friday-june-8th/

Save

Just one more day left! Let’s reach one million so we get the matching funds! – Mom

With just nine days to go until our May 26 deadline, our ‘Drop the Money Bomb on Monsanto’ campaign is generating more excitement than I ever imagined possible. Each day more people, more websites, more media outlets join in this unprecedented, coordinated effort to raise enough money to fight back against Big Biotech and Food Inc. and to – finally – win the right to know if our food contains GMOs.

If you haven’t already pitched in, please make a donation soon. If you have already contributed, please forward this week’s issue of Organic Bytes to friends, or share it with your social media networks.

We need your help today to raise $1 million for the California Right to Know Genetically Engineered Food Act. If we reach our goal by May 26, we will receive a matching $1 million gift from Mercola.com, Nature’s Path, Lundberg Family Farms, Eden Foods and a number of public interest organizations.

I’ve had the pleasure of speaking directly with some of you who have called in to make donations. Many of you have thanked OCA for bringing so many groups together around this cause. Twenty years ago, when the FDA outrageously declared that genetically modified foods were “substantially equivalent” to unmodified foods, and therefore would not be labeled, we and our allies didn’t have large email lists, Internet fundraising capabilities, or social media.    We couldn’t have waged a massive campaign like this.

Today, we can almost instantly connect millions of people – and potentially raise millions of dollars – in order to fight back.

And it’s working. Groups like Food Democracy Now!, Mercola.com, Natural News, Farm-to-Consumer Legal Defense Fund, Mother Earth News, OccupyMonsanto360, Alliance for Natural Health, the Farm Food Freedom Coalition, Real Food Media, FoodFreedomGroup.com, Institute for Responsible Technology, and many more are reaching out to their grassroots networks, in a massive show of solidarity.

Since May 1, we have raised over $600,000, which will go directly toward winning the campaign in California, as well as supporting other state GMO labeling campaigns. With your help, we will raise another $400,000 – plus a $1 million matching gift – by May 26.

This GMO labeling battle in California is huge. It’s the best opportunity – our last best hope – to show the government and those corporations that have a stranglehold on our food supply that we – moms, dads, grandparents, students, ordinary citizens – will no longer be kept in the dark about genetically engineered bacteria, viruses, and foreign DNA routinely being laced into our food. We will no longer sit back and allow companies and retailers to label or market GMO-tainted food as “natural” or “all-natural.”

We have a real chance to win in California on November 6. The Biotech industry can’t win in November by buying off politicians because this is a citizens’ ballot initiative. Registered California voters bypassed the legislature to put this on the ballot themselves. Our members and our allies gathered nearly one million signatures – almost twice as many as we needed – to put this issue on the ballot. Polls show that 90 percent of voters support GMO labeling.

Unable to buy their way to victory, Big Biotech and Food Inc. will use their huge war chest to try to scare voters into defeating this initiative. They’ve already cranked up the propaganda machine with the usual lies: Labeling will make food more expensive, family farmers will suffer economically; the law is too confusing, etc.

None of this is true. Almost 50 countries – including Russia, China, Japan and the European Union – require labeling of genetically engineered food and ingredients. Far from the disastrous results that Monsanto would have us believe, labeling has not significantly increased food costs, nor are consumers in those countries confused. Small farmers are doing just fine.

What has happened is this: Once labeling was required by law, millions of consumers rejected GMO-tainted food products. Consequently food manufacturers and retailers stopped selling GMOs. Farmers stopped growing them. Sales of organic products increased significantly. Consumers, empowered with the Right to Know, became more knowledgeable and healthier. Farms and fields became less contaminated. All because companies like Monsanto and Dow, Wal-Mart, Con-Agra, and Kellogg’s were no longer able to force-feed genetically engineered foods to the public.

It is hard to believe that here, in the US, we continue to allow Monsanto and corporate agribusiness to carry out the largest food experiment in history, to literally treat us as like lab rats. It’s time to put an end to this. It’s time to pass the California Right to Know Genetically Engineered Foods ballot initiative.

Please take a minute today to think about who – among your family, friends, business associates, social media contacts – might be willing to donate to this campaign, or to help promote the campaign to their networks, online or offline.

This is the food fight of our lives, the battle that will determine the future of food and farming. The stakes are high. Your support is critical.

Please give as generously as you can. And please help us spread the word.

http://www.organicconsumersfund.org/donate/moneybomb.cfm

Read more, great Monday Mania posts here: http://www.thehealthyhomeeconomist.com/monday-mania-5212012/

Read more, great Fat Tuesday posts here: http://realfoodforager.com/fat-tuesday-may-22-2012/

Read more, great Real Food Wednesday posts here: http://kellythekitchenkop.com/2012/05/real-food-wednesday-5162012.html

Read more, great Simple Lives Thursday posts here: http://gnowfglins.com/2012/05/24/simple-lives-thursday-97/#

Read more, great Fight Back Friday posts here: http://www.foodrenegade.com/fight-back-friday-may-25th/

Save

GMOs and Real Food in the News

Lot of great things going on in the news this week. Enjoy!  Mom

 

Goodbye, Factory Farm: ‘Food, Inc.’ Chicken Farmer Goes Rogue

Fed up with the horrific conditions, former Perdue contractor Carole Morison has started a humane, free-range farm.

By Megan Bedard

May 7, 2012

“Know where your food comes from and how it got to your table. Know your farmer!” says Carole Morison, a proud new free-range farm owner. (Photo: Carole Morison)

When Food, Inc.—a documentary exposing the highly mechanized food industry—hit theaters in 2008, it left many Americans feeling queasy about the unsavory methods that bring food to their plates. Carole Morison, a Maryland chicken farmer under contract with Perdue Farms, was featured prominently in the film. “I’ve just made up my mind I’m gonna say what I have to say,” she says in the film, before opening the door to her henhouse to expose the filthy, overcrowded conditions of her factory-style farm.

Five years after filming, she’s a long way from that moment. When her contract with Perdue Farm was terminated (the company ended the relationship when Carole and her husband refused an “upgrade” that would have closed the chickens off from sunlight and fresh air) Carole and her husband left the factory farming system in the dust and started a humane, free range farm.

So what’s different? Pretty much everything.

Why Hasn’t the FDA Banned Arsenic in Chicken Feed?

TakePart: Five years ago, when Food, Inc. was being filmed, you were already visibly disgusted by the conditions on your farm and the pressures put on you by Perdue. What finally pushed you over the edge and inspired your change?

Carole Morison: Becoming disgusted with the conditions on the farm and the pressures from Perdue was a gradual buildup of things until the final questioning of myself: “How did I get like this?”

I wasn’t born a farmer; I married a farmer. In the beginning I thought that the way we were raising chickens was the only way it was done. About five years into contract farming, I started questioning the conditions that farmers were forced into through the contracts. I learned early that you weren’t supposed to talk about it—at least not publicly. A well-meaning friend of my husband said at that time that I needed to put a lid on it or we would lose our contract. Having not grown up in the system, it was impossible for me to understand that we weren’t allowed to speak or that we had no say over how we operated our farm and the raising of the chickens. Looking back, I can remember us sitting at the kitchen table talking about the system and actually lowering our voices as if someone might hear.  It’s humorous now, but at the time the fear was real.

Picking up dead chickens and having to kill many that weren’t thrifty or uniform in the size that the company wanted was a daily chore. It was disheartening. There was never any choice in the matter or the option to give the animal a chance. The culling [killing] of chickens was something that I could never bring myself to do; I always left it for my husband. I do believe in euthanizing animals that are suffering or don’t stand a chance of survival; however, I don’t believe in killing animals just because they don’t measure up to the cookie cutter demands by industry.

TakePart: What other kinds of demands does the industry put on you? Can you describe how they affected your farm?

Carole Morison: Industry mixing and matching of breeds and genetics produces chickens that meet consumer demands, such as large breasts. Chickens which grow at such a rapid weight that they reach slaughter within six to seven weeks enable the companies to produce pounds of meat quickly. Watching these chickens grow to the point that they couldn’t take more than a few steps and then plop down in exhaustion or had bad legs because their bones couldn’t support the weight was normal. Many would flip over and die from heart attacks.

The control over our farm and constant demands for upgrades to housing and equipment infuriated me. It was as if we had turned our bank account over to the company and they had a blank check. If we didn’t allow the company to spend our money for us, the threat of contract termination was used as the enforcer. Many times I had to bite my tongue to not tell the company men to put the contract where the sun doesn’t shine. When both of us had to get off-farm jobs in order to support the farm and put food on the table, it made absolutely no sense to me. It was like we were supporting a very expensive habit that we could do without.

TakePart: How did you cope with something you knew was wrong?

Carole Morison: I became numb to these things in order to cope on a daily basis. If I blocked it from my mind, then I didn’t have to feel bad about the things we were forced to do in order to survive. Pride and stubbornness are farmer traits, and losing the family farm is not on the “to-do list.”

TakePart: So industry demands were obviously upsetting you. What else did you see as problematic about the poultry industry?

Carole Morison: Industry handling of environmental issues over runoff from manure and overloading of nutrients boggled my mind and still does to this day. Absolute denial by industry was followed by passing all of the blame to farmers. I have never understood how the companies can claim ownership of the flock of chickens on the farm (a written clause in the contract) and then take no responsibility of the manure that their chickens produce. The only time that the chickens belong to the farmer is when they are dead. I’ve always said that when the time comes that chicken manure is worth money, the companies will assume ownership.

When antibiotic-resistant bacteria and other public-health issues emerged, I knew in my mind that the culprit was the industry. Finding out that arsenic was in the feed that the company sends (which the farmer has to use—another contract item) infuriated me. It had been going on for years. Unknowingly we were spreading manure containing arsenic on our land as well as being exposed to it on a daily basis from the dust and feed in the chicken house. I went ballistic wondering how our right to know didn’t figure into the equation.

Read the rest here: http://www.takepart.com/article/2012/05/06/goodbye-factory-farm-food-incs-chicken-farmer-Carole-Morison-goes-rogue

 

Creating Sustainable Agriculture Without Government Subsidies

An interview with “Christian-conservative-libertarian-environmentalist-lunatic” Joel Salatin

Baylen Linnekin | May 5, 2012

I first met farmer, author, entrepreneur, thinker, and self-described “Christian-conservative-libertarian-environmentalist-lunatic” Joel Salatin at his rural Virginia farm, Polyface, in 2009. We sat in rocking chairs in his home office and talked about everything from food and agriculture to law, regulations, and the Bill of Rights.

I’ve seen Salatin several times since—in Washington, DC, and Little Rock, Arkansas and, most recently, back at his farm—and have even invoked his unsubsidized farming practices to argue that he and farmers like him should serve as the model for supporters of sustainable agriculture—meaning farming that eschews government subsidies while both minimizing environmental impacts and also turning a profit.

Salatin’s books include Everything I Want to Do is Illegal, probably the best book on the crushing regulatory burden faced by small- and medium-sized farmers in America. In his most recent work, Folks, This Ain’t Normal, Salatin takes a broader look at what once was normal and how a modern society like ours can still embrace elements of traditional normalcy without resigning ourselves to a Luddite future.

What follows below, the result of an interview I conducted with Salatin by email in late April and early May, are Salatin’s thoughts on everything from farm subsidies to intern labor, and from the War on Drugs to which fast food joints he’s eaten at over the years. Oh, and Salatin reveals which home-cooked meal makes him say “yum.”

Full Disclosure: Salatin is a member and supporter of my nonprofit, Keep Food Legal.

Reason: You recently posted your response to a column by James McWilliams, a professor and vegan and the author of the anti-locavorism book Just Food. McWilliams claimed only a vegan diet can save the planet. You responded in part that the farming practices you employ are often better for the environment than those touted by McWilliams. The thing about the conversation that interests me most is not whether either of you is objectively correct. Rather, it’s your competing visions of how to build a better food system. Should the government take sides in this debate by implementing particular policies that favor your views? Or should the government just allow this debate to flourish in the marketplace of ideas?

Joel Salatin: I think the government should allow this debate to flourish in the marketplace of ideas. The government entered this debate in the early 1970s by publishing the first food pyramid, a guide for what Americans should eat. The obesity and diabetes epidemic in this country are a direct result of that intrusion, sponsored and massaged along by the grain cartel and big ag, from chemical companies to equipment dealers. Grain requires more machinery, more energy, and more risk (hence justification for manipulation) than pasture based livestock, and especially forage-based herbivores.

In the last 50 years, Americans have doubled their consumption of wheat. Gluten intolerance and celiac disease are direct results of American agriculture policy and specifically the government’s wading into the food arena. Eliminating government involvement stimulates people to inform themselves and actively participate in the discussion. As soon as the credentialed officials enter the fray, the average person withdraws to let the experts figure it out, which always leads to ubiquitous ignorance.

Reason: How do you make money without federal government subsidies?

Salatin: In general, we run the farm like a business instead of a welfare recipient and we adhere to historically-validated patterns. For example, instead of buying petroleum fertilizer, we self-generate fertilizer with our own carbon and manures through large scale composting, which we turn with pigs (pigaerators) rather than machinery. Letting the animals do the work takes the capital-intensive depreciable infrastructure out of the equation and creates profitability that is size-neutral.

Read the rest here: http://reason.com/archives/2012/05/05/the-joel-salatin-interview/singlepage

 

 

Something Historical is About to Happen – But Your Participation is Critical

May 01 2012 | 189,991 views | 183 comments |

 

Visit the Mercola Video Library

Story at-a-glance

• Between May 1 and May 26, a broad coalition of food, farming, health groups, and organic food manufacturers, will attempt to raise one million dollars to defeat Monsanto propaganda and get the California Right to Know Genetically Engineered Food Act on the ballot for November 6, and passed into law.
• Money raised in this Million Dollar Money Bomb on Monsanto campaign will support the California Ballot Initiative and other state GE-labeling campaigns.
• If donations totaling $1 million is reached by May 26, a coalition of benefactors will MATCH it, bringing the Money Bomb to $2 million!

Related Links:

• Latest News on Genetically Engineered Foods
• The Dramatic New Rule Change for Genetically Engineered Foods
• Booted Out of Germany – the Ignorance that Could Destroy Your Health

 

By Dr. Mercola

Mayday! Mayday!

I’m pleased to announce that the Money Bomb Against Monsanto has been officially launched!

Yes, it is official.

Volunteers and staff from the California Right to Know Campaign are submitting nearly 1 million signed petitions from registered voters across the state of California to county officials, to place Right to Know Genetically Engineered Food Act on the Ballot for November 6.

Starting May 1, and extending through May 26, a broad coalition of farmers, health groups, and organic food manufacturers, will attempt to raise one million dollars (i.e. “The Money Bomb”). Donations can be made online, via regular snail mail, and over the phone. All donations will support state GMO-labeling campaigns and their defense from biotech bully lawsuits.

The Right to Know Gentically Engineered Food Act

This Act will require food manufacturers to identify genetically engineered ingredients on the labels of foods sold in California.

When California voters pass this ballot initiative, the Label Genetically Engineered Food Act will also not allow the common practice of mislabeling genetically engineered foods as “natural” or “all natural.” It’s imperative to understand why this initiative is so important and how it can affect all Americans, regardless of where you live.

California has the eighth largest economy in the world, so passing a labeling law for genetically engineered foods in California can have the same impact as passing a federal law.

Large food companies are unlikely to accept having dual labeling; one for California and another for the rest of the country. It would be an expensive logistical nightmare, not to mention a massive PR problem.

To avoid the dual labeling, many would likely opt to not include using any genetically engineered ingredients in their product, especially if the new label would be the equivalent of a skull and crossbones. Those who opt not to replace GE ingredients from the get-go will likely find themselves unable to sell their products, as a majority of consumers reportedly will not buy foods once they know they’re genetically engineered. Unable to sell their products, such companies will eventually be forced to stop contaminating our food with genetically engineered ingredients, or risk going out of business.

This is what happened in Europe and over 40 countries around the world. It can happen in the U.S. This is why we can’t leave California to battle the biotech giants on their own. They need your help! Donating funds to this campaign may be the best money you’ll spend all year to safeguard your health, and the health of your children.

Do you know which foods are genetically engineered when you go grocery shopping for your family? Wouldn’t you want to know? Genetically engineered foods have been on the market since 1996. It’s time they tell us what’s in the food we’re eating on a daily basis. Making a generous donation to this campaign is the best chance every American has at this point to make that happen!

The Proverbial David versus Goliath

Naturally, the biotech industry is not about to let this pass without a fight. Monsanto, the Farm Bureau, the Grocery Manufacturers Association, along with corporate agribusiness, are all raising millions of dollars to spread their propaganda in an effort to defeat the California Ballot Initiative, just like they did a decade ago in Oregon. At that time, a cabal of corporate giants, including Monsanto and DuPont, calling themselves The Coalition Against the Costly Labeling Law, outspent the pro-labeling group 30-1, and successfully defeated the labeling initiative by scaring voters into believing that labeling genetically engineered foods was unnecessary and would raise food prices.

They did it again in Washington state last month, where campaign contributions to three of the eight politicians on the Senate Agriculture Committee—Democrat Brian Hatfield, and Republicans Jim Honeyford and Mark Schoesler—guaranteed the bill’s demise in committee. Right now, the biotech industry is also working to defeat similar GE labeling bills in Vermont, Hawaii, Connecticut, and other states. According to the Union of Concerned Scientists, Monsanto spent $8 million on their lobbying efforts in 2010 alone, and gave more than $400,000 in political contributions. Monsanto also spent $120 million on advertising, to convince consumers that genetically engineered foods are safe – despite the overwhelming scientific evidence showing otherwise.

Let’s send them a message, loud and clear: We have the right to know what they put into our food!

You can do so by making a donation right now. The money will be used to counter the industry propaganda so that we can win this ballot.

We’re Dropping the Money Bomb!

About twenty years ago, the FDA decided to deny consumers the right to know whether their food was genetically altered or not. This shameful regulation was spearheaded by Michael Taylor, a former Monsanto lawyer who transferred into the offices of the FDA. Taylor is not the only ex-Monsanto employee that ended up in a position of power within the US federal government and its regulatory agencies, and this is precisely why previous efforts to get genetically engineered foods labeled have been blocked.

Not so this time!

Ballot Initiatives like the one in California is one way for citizens to take back control from compromised politicians and government officials and bypass them entirely. To sweeten the deal further, a group of “Right to Know” public interest organizations and organic companies have pledged to match the first million dollars raised in this nationwide “Drop the Money Bomb on Monsanto Campaign.”

So click here, and help us raise 1 million dollars to win this historic campaign! These “Right to Know” groups include:

• The Organic Consumers Association
• Mercola.com
• Food Democracy Now
• Nature’s Path
• Lundberg Family Farms
• Eden Foods, and
• The Organic Consumers Fund
• Institute For Responsible Technology

Can We Win?

Yes, I believe we can! But we need to get the word out, which requires a strong campaign to educate the citizens of California to vote for the initiative on November 6. According to Ronnie Cummins of the Organic Consumers Association, we stand a good chance of winning in California because:

• This time, we have far more scientific information and greater public awareness on our side. GE contamination is now a mainstream media issue. Monsanto has become the most hated corporation in the world.
• This time, we have overwhelming public support. Polls show that more than 8 out of 10 voters in California want mandatory GE labeling.
• This time, we have built the strongest coalition of concerned food consumers in history, for the exclusive purpose of passing this law.

Read the rest and donate here:

http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2012/05/01/monsanto-vs-gmo-labeling.aspx

Read more, great Monday Mania posts here: http://www.thehealthyhomeeconomist.com/monday-mania-572012/

Read more great Fat Tuesday posts here: http://realfoodforager.com/fat-tuesday-may-7-2012/

Read more great, Real Food Wednesday posts here: http://kellythekitchenkop.com/2012/05/real-food-wednesday-522012.html

 

 

 

We at Moms for Safe Food are busy this month and next, working with thousands of volunteers across the state, getting signature on the Label Genetically Engineered Food ballot initiative.

If you live in CA and have even a few hours please come join us.  If you don’t live in CA – please pass this along to your friends who do and donate a few dollars through our website, http://www.LabelGMOs.org

Join us to educate about, and Label GMOs – (for a start! 🙂

Here are some great links to learn more about GMOs – Genetically Engineered Food and our initiative.

http://www.responsibletechnology.org/

http://www.organicconsumers.org/monsanto/index.cfm

Some wonderful videos:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rixyrCNVVGA

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F7Id9caYw-Y&feature=relmfu

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wx79jzrRdyg

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M3AXlCc4lZA

 

Thanks!

Mom

Save

We are busy this week, getting ready to start gathering signatures in California to get Mandatatory Labeling of GMOs on the Ballot for the November election.

Please join us!  If you’re not in CA, you can pass the info along to friends and family who are, or give a donation.

Together we can make a difference!  Mom

Here’s the Grassroots site. You can learn more, volunteer or donate at the link below.

LabelGMOs.org

We’re on Facebook too:

https://www.facebook.com/labelgmos

 

Read more great Monday Mania posts here:  http://www.thehealthyhomeeconomist.com/monday-mania-2132012/

Read more great Fat Tuesday posts here: http://realfoodforager.com/fat-tuesday-february-14-2012/

Save

Some interesting articles this week, from major news sources.  Good to see! Mom

 

Grist investigation finds GMO-free bourbon is a rare spirit

By DEAN KUIPERS

Los Angeles Times

With the explosion of artisanal spirits in California and all over the U.S., as well documented by my colleagues here at the L.A. Times, one would think we’d be drowning in organic bourbon, GMO-free this and heritage that. But … no. Getting a snort of organic corn liquor is actually impossible, and drinking without supporting genetically modified maize (to be organic, it has to be GMO-free) proves to be a very, very limited affair.

An investigation by Grist, written by the delightfully named food editor Twilight Greenaway, finds that only the brands Wild Turkey and Four Roses are actually GMO-free. Well, at least there are two. Neither brand is certified organic, but you can be happy you’re not drinking organic corn off the face of the Earth.

About 85 percent of the corn grown in the U.S. is now genetically modified, and this has forced some distillers to cave. Jack Daniels (note: not a bourbon) had committed to using non-GMO corn until lately, when it became too hard to source their corn. Four Roses escapes this quandary because its former owner, Seagrams, grew its own grains and those sources are still available.

Wild Turkey? It’s GMO-free because it’s so cool. No, wait. Actually it’s because its distillers are prudent. Grist explains that they don’t want to put the bourbon on oak for 15 years and then find out there’s a problem with the GMO corn and have to dump it. Smart. These are people who are assuming what very few other food giants do: We don’t know what GMOs do to the body yet. They create their own insecticides and make plants impervious to massive doses of herbicides. Who knows what else that genetic structure does over time? The distillers figure it’s a risky business decision to use them.

And you know how you pour whiskey on stuff and it’s supposed to just kill everything, sterilizing it? Well, if your whiskey maker is saying he’s concerned about GMOs, what are we supposed to think about the other, decidedly less-robust stuff we eat all day?

Nah, it’s probably fine.
Read more here: http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/01/23/2603382/grist-investigation-finds-gmo.html#storylink=cpy

 

Effort gets underway to require GMO food labeling

By Jamie Hansen
ARGUS-COURIER STAFF

Published: Friday, January 20, 2012 at 2:15 p.m.

Last Modified: Friday, January 20, 2012 at 2:15 p.m.

The Petaluma Seed Bank bustled on Monday night as more than 20 people munched on organic ice cream and cookies and talked about what they saw as the dangers of genetically modified food. The reason for the meeting: A 2012 ballot initiative that would require labeling of genetically modified organisms, or GMOs, when they are sold in grocery stores.

Concern over GMOs — food whose DNA has been altered by humans — has increased in recent years. Many say that the dangers of such food haven’t been adequately tested, while consumers continue to unknowingly buy products containing GMOs.

In 2005, GMOs became a heated issue on the county ballot, when opponents proposed a measure that would have imposed a 10-year ban on growing or selling genetically-altered crops within the county.

Farm, ranch and grape grower organizations fought back, arguing that the ban would unfairly impact local agriculture, and the measure failed.

Now, a statewide group has sprung up to tackle the issue once again, but with a different strategy. The California Committee for the Right to Know is hoping to gather the 800,000 signatures necessary to place an initiative on the state ballot.

It’s called The California Right to Know Genetically Engineered Food Act. Rather than banning GMOs, it would require food sold in grocery stores to be labeled if it contained genetically altered products. It would also prohibit such food from being advertised as “natural.”

“We feel people have the right to know what they’re feeding their families,” said Karen Hudson, who is co-coordinating signature gathering for Sonoma County.

The Sonoma County Farm Bureau, which opposed the 2005 measure, couldn’t be reached for comment on the new initiative Wednesday.

Read the rest here: http://www.petaluma360.com/article/20120120/COMMUNITY/120129960/1362/community?Title=Effort-gets-underway-to-require-GMO-food-labeling

 

Monsanto Attempts to Lockout Socially Responsible Shareholder at Annual Meeting

ST. LOUIS, Jan. 20, 2012 /PRNewswire via COMTEX/ — Shareholder’s Resolution Would Require Chemical Giant to Study Risks of its Genetically Engineered Crops

Protests Outside Monsanto 2012 Annual Meeting Planned

On Tuesday, January 24 at 1:30 PM, Monsanto officers and shareholders will vote on a shareholder proposal to create a study of “material financial risks or operational impacts” associated with its chemical products and genetically modified organisms (GMOs).

The proposal represents one of the strongest signals to date that the biotech food conglomerate is facing growing consumer, legal, and regulatory uncertainties. As of today, however Monsanto has told John Harrington that they will not recognize his proxy who would speak on behalf of the resolution for only three minutes under normal circumstances.

The meeting itself is only open to shareholders but concerned citizens will be demonstrating outside the northeast entrance to Monsanto’s Lindberg campus beginning at 12:00 noon. Monsanto Headquarters is located at 800 North Lindberg Boulevard in St. Louis, MO.

Adam Eidinger, an organic food activist who recently led a walk from NY to Washington DC on behalf of honest food labeling, will present the shareholder resolution on behalf of Napa, California based Harrington Investments (HII) with help from the Pesticide Action Network of North America (PANNA).

Eidinger will be available for interview before and after the shareholder meeting, which he will drive a “Label GMO” art car to attend. Representatives from HII and PANNA will be also available for interview before and after the shareholder meeting. Eidinger’s written testimony is available by request.

In its statement recommending shareholders to vote against the HII resolution, Monsanto management stated that, “Farmers should have the freedom to choose which production method is best suited for their needs, whether organic, non-GM conventional or biotechnology traits. All of these systems can and do work effectively side by side…”

John Harrington, CEO of Harrington Investments questions the veracity of Monsanto’s statement: “While I am heartened by Monsanto’s sudden concern for the freedom of farmers, the unfortunate reality facing American farmers right now, is that genetic drift from GMO crops is contaminating their conventional and organic crops. This can be disastrous because many GMO crops cannot be sold to important markets, such as Europe, China and Japan. The potential legal implications for Monsanto are staggering.”

Eidinger, who organized last October’s a 100 person, 313 mile “Right2Know March” from New York City to the White House for federally mandated GMO food labeling says: “With the rise or Round-Up resistant ‘superweeds’ the company is simply telling farmers to spray even more toxic herbicides including 2,4 D, the main ingredient in Agent Orange. Many people are struggling to avoid GMOs and chemicals used on them in the food they eat due to serious health and environmental concerns yet Americans have no right to know what we are eating largely due to the close ties Monsanto has to President Obama’s USDA and FDA which has ignored more than 500,000 Americans who have signed on to the JustLabelIt.org petition to the FDA.”

More information about the protest may be found at http://www.facebook.com/events/340545799304131/

From: http://www.marketwatch.com/story/monsanto-attempts-to-lockout-socially-responsible-shareholder-at-annual-meeting-2012-01-20

Read more great Monday Mania posts here: http://www.thehealthyhomeeconomist.com/monday-mania-1232012/

Read more great Fat Tuesday posts here: http://realfoodforager.com/fat-tuesday-january-24-2012/

Read more great Real Food Wednesday posts here: http://kellythekitchenkop.com/2012/01/real-food-wednesday-1182012.html

Read more great Simple Lives Thursday posts here: http://gnowfglins.com/2012/01/26/simple-lives-thursday-80/

Save

Here’s just one more reason that it seems like GMOs are a problem.  All the pesticides being used seem to be causing problems  for all of us.  Mom

Honeybee populations have been in serious decline for years, and Purdue University scientists may have identified one of the factors that cause bee deaths around agricultural fields.

Analyses of bees found dead in and around hives from several apiaries over two years in Indiana showed the presence of neonicotinoid insecticides, which are commonly used to coat corn and soybean seeds before planting. The research showed that those insecticides were present at high concentrations in waste talc that is exhausted from farm machinery during planting.

The insecticides clothianidin and thiamethoxam were also consistently found at low levels in soil – up to two years after treated seed was planted – on nearby dandelion flowers and in corn pollen gathered by the bees, according to the findings released in the journal PLoS One this month.

“We know that these insecticides are highly toxic to bees; we found them in each sample of dead and dying bees,” said Christian Krupke, associate professor of entomology and a co-author of the findings.

The United States is losing about one-third of its honeybee hives each year, according to Greg Hunt, a Purdue professor of behavioral genetics, honeybee specialist and co-author of the findings. Hunt said no one factor is to blame, though scientists believe that others such as mites and insecticides are all working against the bees, which are important for pollinating food crops and wild plants.

“It’s like death by a thousand cuts for these bees,” Hunt said.

Krupke and Hunt received reports that bee deaths in 2010 and 2011 were occurring at planting time in hives near agricultural fields. Toxicological screenings performed by Brian Eitzer, a co-author of the study from the Connecticut Agricultural Experiment Station, for an array of pesticides showed that the neonicotinoids used to treat corn and soybean seed were present in each sample of affected bees. Krupke said other bees at those hives exhibited tremors, uncoordinated movement and convulsions, all signs of insecticide poisoning.

Seeds of most annual crops are coated in neonicotinoid insecticides for protection after planting. All corn seed and about half of all soybean seed is treated. The coatings are sticky, and in order to keep seeds flowing freely in the vacuum systems used in planters, they are mixed with talc. Excess talc used in the process is released during planting and routine planter cleaning procedures.

“Given the rates of corn planting and talc usage, we are blowing large amounts of contaminated talc into the environment. The dust is quite light and appears to be quite mobile,” Krupke said.

Krupke said the corn pollen that bees were bringing back to hives later in the year tested positive for neonicotinoids at levels roughly below 100 parts per billion.

“That’s enough to kill bees if sufficient amounts are consumed, but it is not acutely toxic,” he said.

On the other hand, the exhausted talc showed extremely high levels of the insecticides – up to about 700,000 times the lethal contact dose for a bee.

“Whatever was on the seed was being exhausted into the environment,” Krupke said. “This material is so concentrated that even small amounts landing on flowering plants around a field can kill foragers or be transported to the hive in contaminated pollen. This might be why we found these insecticides in pollen that the bees had collected and brought back to their hives.”

Krupke suggested that efforts could be made to limit or eliminate talc emissions during planting.

“That’s the first target for corrective action,” he said. “It stands out as being an enormous source of potential environmental contamination, not just for honeybees, but for any insects living in or near these fields. The fact that these compounds can persist for months or years means that plants growing in these soils can take up these compounds in leaf tissue or pollen.”

Although corn and soybean production does not require insect pollinators, that is not the case for most plants that provide food. Krupke said protecting bees benefits agriculture since most fruit, nut and vegetable crop plants depend upon honeybees for pollination. The U.S. Department of Agriculture estimates the value of honeybees to commercial agriculture at $15 billion to $20 billion annually.

Hunt said he would continue to study the sublethal effects of neonicotinoids. He said for bees that do not die from the insecticide there could be other effects, such as loss of homing ability or less resistance to disease or mites.

“I think we need to stop and try to understand the risks associated with these insecticides,” Hunt said.

ABSTRACT

Christian H. Krupke, Greg J. Hunt, Brian D. Eitzer, Gladys Andino, Krispn Given

Populations of honeybees and other pollinators have declined worldwide in recent years. A variety of stressors have been implicated as potential causes, including agricultural pesticides. Neonicotinoid insecticides, which are widely used and highly toxic to honeybees, have been found in previous analyses of honeybee pollen and comb material. However, the routes of exposure have remained largely undefined. We used LC/MS-MS to analyze samples of honeybees, pollen stored in the hive and several potential exposure routes associated with plantings of neonicotinoid treated maize. Our results demonstrate that bees are exposed to these compounds and several other agricultural pesticides in several ways throughout the foraging period. During spring, extremely high levels of clothianidin and thiamethoxam were found in planter exhaust material produced during the planting of treated maize seed. We also found neonicotinoids in the soil of each field we sampled, including unplanted fields. Plants visited by foraging bees (dandelions) growing near these fields were found to contain neonicotinoids as well. This indicates deposition of neonicotinoids on the flowers, uptake by the root system, or both. Dead bees collected near hive entrances during the spring sampling period were found to contain clothianidin as well, although whether exposure was oral (consuming pollen) or by contact (soil/planter dust) is unclear. We also detected the insecticide clothianidin in pollen collected by bees and stored in the hive. When maize plants in our field reached anthesis, maize pollen from treated seed was found to contain clothianidin and other pesticides; and honeybees in our study readily collected maize pollen. These findings clarify some of the mechanisms by which honeybees may be exposed to agricultural pesticides throughout the growing season. These results have implications for a wide range of large-scale annual cropping systems that utilize neonicotinoid seed treatments.

Provided by Purdue University

“Honeybee deaths linked to seed insecticide exposure.” January 12th, 2012. http://www.physorg.com/news/2012-01-honeybee-deaths-linked-seed-insecticide.html

Read more Monday Mania posts here: http://www.thehealthyhomeeconomist.com/monday-mania-1162012/

Read more Fat Tuesday posts here: http://realfoodforager.com/fat-tuesday-january-17-2012/

Save