Wednesday 30 March 2011

Farming regulations: German Constitutional Court confirms biotech law


(25 November 2010) The Federal Constitutional Court of Germany (the BVerfG, seated in Karlsruhe) has confirmed essential stipulations of what is known as the ‘genetic engineering act’. Currently-valid restrictions on the cultivation of genetically modified (GM) plants remain in effect thereby. In 2005, the federal state of Saxony-Anhalt had filed suit against the genetic engineering act put through by the ruling federal government of the time, a coalition of Socialists and Greens.

Saxony-Anhalt had raised particular issue with the regulations on legal responsibility and on the keeping of a site register, claiming that these inappropriately hinder the cultivation of GM plants. According to the suit, such regulations are compatible neither with the freedom of employment ensured by the constitution nor with the guarantee of ownership and the concept of equality before the law.

In the decision announced on 24.11.2010, the Constitutional Court dismissed the suit and confirmed the restrictive regulations applied through the genetic engineering act to cultivation of genetically modified plants. In their legal reasoning, the judges in Karlsruhe cited “…particular duty of care in view of the fact that the state of scientific knowledge has not yet been finally established when assessing the long-term consequences of the use of genetic engineering”.

With regard to legal responsibility, regulations of the genetic engineering act remain valid therewith. According to these regulations, a farmer who sows GM plants is liable for all economic damage that results in conventional stocks through cross-pollination. This liability is binding even in the case in which the ‘GMO-farmer’ has complied with all directives and therefore bears no fault for the cross-breeding damage. In the case that no individual source of the damage may be identified, all GM-planting farmers of the affected region are collectively responsible.

Legally binding directives on best-practice procedures have existed since 2008 for the cultivation of GM plants and particularly for GM maize. According to these, a minimum distance of 150 metres is to be kept between fields of GM and conventional maize. For fields with organic maize, this distance is even increased to 300 metres.

Saxony-Anhalt also failed in its suit against the public availability of the site register. The federal state had argued that the register would provide radical opponents of gene technology with information on the precise whereabouts of fields with GM plants, which then would be vulnerable to acts of destruction.

Changes in the biotechnology law are still expected this year. In particular, federal states are expected to receive greater leeway in the determination of internal rules for the cultivation of GM plants. Before presentation of a concrete draft in relation to the issue, Minister Aigner had announced her intention of waiting for the decision of the Constitutional Court.

See also on GMO Compass:

Further information:

Tuesday 29 March 2011

Vaccines and autism

By Marcella Piper-Terry

Okay. I give up.
Vaccines do not cause autism.

Autism is a behavioral diagnosis. In order to receive the diagnosis of "Autism" a child must exhibit a certain number of behaviors over a certain time frame. If he or she does not do so, the diagnosis of "autism" is not warranted.

There is no blood test for "autism."

"Autism" can't be confirmed or "ruled-out" by laboratory analysis. It's strictly a behavioral diagnosis.

Therefore, anything that causes physiological damage cannot directly "cause" autism.

Ergo... vaccines cannot "cause" "autism."

Vaccines cause other stuff.
Vaccines cause encephalitis.
Vaccines cause seizures.
Vaccines cause immune system deficiencies.
Vaccines cause gastrointestinal problems.

Encephalitis causes mood swings.
Encephalitis causes extreme pain.
Encephalitis causes inattention and impulsivity.
Encephalitis causes aggression.
Encephalitis causes balance problems and difficulty relating to one's environment.

Seizures cause mood swings.
Seizures cause inattention and impulsivity.
Seizures cause alterations in consciousness.

Immune system deficiencies cause children to have more frequent bacterial infections, such as ear infections, upper respiratory infections (URIs), sinusutis, and strep infections.

Immune system deficiencies cause children to have more frequent viral infections, such as stomatitis, "fevers of unknown origin," "viral rashes," hives, conjunctivitis, and gastrointestinal viruses that cause vomiting and diarrhea.

Immune system deficiencies cause children to be more vulnerable to "everything that's going around" and to have a tougher time getting over things than their peers.

Gastrointestinal damage from vaccines causes diarrhea.
Gastrointestinal damage from vaccines causes nausea, reflux, vomiting, and the recently discovered "disease" now known as GERD (Gastro-Esophageal Reflux Disease).

Gastrointestinal damage from vaccines causes increased vulnerability to viruses and bacteria, which leads to increased administration of antibiotics, which leads to overgrowth of pathogenic yeast.

Pathogenic yeast overgrowth leads to intestinal hyper-permeability ("leaky gut syndrome").
Pathogenic yeast overgrowth leads to constipation.
Pathogenic yeast overgrowth leads to food allergies.
Pathogenic yeast overgrowth leads to skin eruptions, "drunken, silly behavior," inattention and impulsivity, and cravings for bread, sugar, ice cream, milk, and carbohydrates.

Technically, vaccines do not cause autism because technically there is no such thing as autism.

Vaccines cause the underlying physical conditions that result in the pain, neurological damage, immune system disorders, gastrointestinal damage, and yeast overgrowth - all of which combine to produce the behavioral symptoms that result in the "autism" diagnosis.

Gastrointestinal damage is the most obvious result of vaccine damage.

When a previously healthy child suddenly starts having multiple episodes of watery and extremely stinky diarrhea every day, and this happens shortly after receiving vaccinations, it is notable as a "vaccine injury." What is not so obvious is that when the child's gut is permanently damaged, he or she is no longer able to absorb nutrients necessary to produce neurotransmitters necessary for proper brain function. So when the child develops mood swings, sleep difficulties, and learning disabilities several months later, these issues are not recognized as being related to the vaccine injury because the initial damage occurred many months earlier.

Please re-read the previous paragraph.

This is why Dr. Andrew Wakefield is such a threat to the pharmaceutical industry.

Dr. Wakefield NEVER said vaccines cause autism.

Dr. Wakefield is a gastroenterologist. He saw a number of children with gastrointestinal problems who also happened to be diagnosed with autism. Dr. Wakefield reported his observations. He never claimed that the MMR "caused" autism. He merely reported that a number of children he had seen had BOTH gastrointestinal problems AND autism, and according to parental report, these issues developed within a short time of when the children received the MMR vaccine.

Again... Why is Dr. Wakefield such a threat to the pharmaceutical industry?

Hint: Not because vaccines cause autism - they don't.

Vaccines cause gastrointestinal damage.

Gastrointestinal damage causes malabsorption of nutrients necessary for proper brain function.
Malabsorption of essential nutrients causes immune system disorders, seizures, encephalopathy, etc... and THAT's what leads to the ultimate diagnosis of "autism." 

If Dr. Wakefield's observations are correct, SOMEONE, SOMEWHERE will eventually draw the connection between vaccines and the domino-effect that leads to the "autism" diagnosis. From the perspective of the pharmaceutical industry, better to "nip it in the bud" now, which means discrediting Dr. Wakefield to the extent that no one will look further into the science.

Has this ploy worked?
Not for me. And not for many of the very intelligent parents I know.
Only time will tell if there are enough of us to make a difference.

Monday 28 March 2011

Iodine deficiency and its disastrous consequences

By Dr Joseph Mercola and Dr David Brownstein



Ori Hofmekler discussing radiation protection



For full text, please click here.

Friday 25 March 2011

Libya - war for the resources

Join the rally for the right to know this Saturday, March 26th! (US)

By The Center for Food Safety

The United States may soon be the only country in the world that does not require labeling of genetically engineered food. In Spring 2000, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) announced that labeling of GE foods would remain voluntary, even though there was no indication that any company would voluntarily label genetically engineered foods--and in the 11 years since, none have. Meanwhile, companies who have eliminated GE ingredients and added “NON-GMO” labels have faced burdensome regulations, while the FDA lets other companies continue to use GE ingredients in secret. It is time to stand up and demand mandatory labeling of GE foods!

This Saturday, March 26th, from D.C. to Colorado Springs--and more than 20 cities in between--thousands of people will join together for a Rally for the Right to Know, demanding labeling of GMO foods. Check out the events listing on the Rally for the Right to Know Facebook page to find a rally near you (please RSVP at the event page if you plan to attend an event).

Our CFS True Food Shoppers Guides will be available at all of the rallies! We hope our True Food Network members in these areas can attend a rally. This is a great way to make your voice heard, demand mandatory GE food labeling, and meet others in your community who care about True Food!

Find a rally near you and RSVP:

If you can't attend any of the rallies in person, join our virtual rally on Saturday, March 26th instead! CFS True Food Network members across the country will be sending letters to Congress urging legislation implementing mandatory labeling of GMO foods.

If you are not a Facebook user, the event cities and times are listed below.
Rally for the Right to Know!

Washington, D.C.
Saturday, March 26, 2011
11am - 3pm
Location: The White House Sidewalk

Colorado Springs, CO
Saturday, March 26, 11:00am - 1:30pm 
Location: Acacia Park

Los Angeles (Westwood)
Saturday, March 26, 11:00am - 2:00pm 
Location: Los Angeles (Westwood) Federal Building
11000 Wilshire Blvd.

Milwaukee, WI
Saturday, March 26, 11:00am - 2:00pm 
Location: Water and Wisconsin

Indianapolis, IN
Saturday, March 26, 12:00pm - 2:00pm
Location: 200 W. Washington Street #220, Indianapolis IN 46204

Nashville, TN
Saturday, March 26, 10:00am - 1:00pm
Location: 900 Rosa Parks Boulevard (Eighth Avenue North)
Nashville, TN 37208

Tampa, FL
Saturday, March 26, 11:00am - 1:00pm
Location: Meet at the St Pete Fine Arts Museum under the Banyon trees
255 Beach Drive Northeast
Saint Petersburg, FL 33701 www.fine-arts.org

Hollywood, FL
Saturday, March 26, 11:00am - 2:00pm
Location: Open Air Bandshell Theatre on Hollywood Beach Boardwalk, 100 Johnson Street and North Ocean Drive/A1A
Hollywood Beach, FL

Salem, OR
Saturday, March 26, 12:00pm - 3:00pm 
Location: 900 Court St. NE, Salem, Oregon 97301

Atlanta, GA
Saturday, March 26, 11:00am - 4:00pm 
Location: Around Centennial Olympic Park across from the CNN Bldg. Atlanta, GA

Kansas City, MO
Saturday, March 26, 12:00pm - 3:00pm 
Location: Country Club Plaza Downtown Kansas City, MO

Montpelier, VT
Saturday, March 26, 11:00am - 3:00pm 
Location: Outside CITY HALL in Montpelier, VT

Albuquerque, NM
Saturday, March 26, 12:00pm - 3:00pm 
Location: University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, NM

Maui, HI
Saturday, March 26, 8:00am - 11:00am 
Location: in front of Long's streetside on Ka'ahumanu Ave in Kahului, Maui 

Ann Arbor, MI
Saturday, March 26, 12:00pm - 3:00pm 
Location: Southeast corner of Catherine Street and N. 4th Avenue - just south of the A2 Farmers Market and Kerrytown Shops

Austin, TX
Saturday, March 26, 12:00pm - 3:00pm 
Location: The Capitol - Austin, TX

Gilbert, AZ
Saturday, March 26, 12:00pm - 1:00pm 
Location Pending; check http://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=161143050607393 for updates

Saint Paul, MN
Saturday, March 26, 12:00pm - 2:00pm 
Location: Minnesota State Capitol Building - South Mall
75 Rev Dr. Martin Luther King Jr Blvd, 55155

Seattle, WA
Saturday, March 26, 12:00pm - 2:00pm 
Location: Victor Steinbrueck Park, SEATTLE
2001 Western Avenue (by Pike Place Market)

New York, NY
Saturday, March 26, 12:00pm - 1:00pm 
Location: CITY HALL steps New York City 
Between Broadway and Park Row

Chico, CA
Saturday, March 26, 11:00am - 3:00pm 
Location: Downtown "Park" between Broadway and Main Streets (where the fountains are; 3 blocks from FOOD CO-OP), Chico, CA 

*If you plan to attend one of these events and can not RSVP via the Facebook pages, please RSVP via email to office@centerforfoodsafety.org and let us know which event you plan to attend (and how many of you will attend) so we can get a head count to local rally organizers!

Thursday 24 March 2011

Can the United States feed China?

By Lester R. Brown

In 1994, I wrote an article in World Watch magazine entitled “Who Will Feed China?” that was later expanded into a book of the same title. When the article was published in late August, the press conference generated only moderate coverage. But when it was reprinted that weekend on the front of the Washington Post’s Outlook section with the title “How China Could Starve the World,” it unleashed a political firestorm in Beijing. 

The response began with a press conference at the Ministry of Agriculture on Monday morning, where Deputy Minister Wan Baorui denounced the study. Advancing technology, he said, would enable the Chinese people to feed themselves. This was followed by a government-orchestrated stream of articles that challenged my findings. 

The strong reaction surprised me. In retrospect, although I had followed closely the Great Famine of 1959–61, during which some 30 million people starved to death, I had not fully appreciated the psychological scars it left. The leaders in Beijing are survivors of that famine. As a result of that traumatic experience, no leader could acknowledge that China might one day have to import much of its food. China, they said, had always fed itself, and it always would. 

As party leaders assessed the situation, they decided to launch an all-out effort to maintain grain self-sufficiency. The government quickly adopted several key production-boosting measures, including a 40 percent rise in the grain support price paid to farmers, an increase in agricultural credit, and heavy investment in developing higher-yielding strains of wheat, rice, and corn, their leading crops. 

They offset cropland losses in the fast-industrializing coastal provinces by plowing grasslands in the northwestern provinces, a measure that contributed to the emergence of the country’s massive dust bowl. In addition to overplowing, they expanded irrigation by overpumping aquifers. 

Lastly, the Party made a conscious decision to abandon self-sufficiency in soybeans and concentrate their agricultural resources on remaining self-sufficient in grain. The effect of neglecting the soybean in the country where it originated was dramatic. In 1995 China produced and consumed nearly 14 million tons of soybeans. In 2010 it was still producing only 14 million tons—but it consumed nearly 70 million tons, most of it to supplement grain in livestock and poultry rations. China now imports four-fifths of its soybeans. (See data.)

China’s decision to import vast quantities of soybeans led to a restructuring of agriculture in the western hemisphere, the only region that could respond to such a massive demand. The United States now has more land in soybeans than in wheat. Brazil has more land in soybeans than in all grains combined. Argentina, with twice as much land in soybeans as in grain, is fast becoming a soybean monoculture. For the hemisphere as a whole, there is now more land in soybeans than in either wheat or corn.

The United States, Brazil, and Argentina—the big three soybean producers—now account for more than 80 percent of the world harvest and nearly 90 percent of soybean exports. Nearly 60 percent of world soybean exports go to China.

Despite China’s herculean efforts to expand grain output, several trends are now converging that make it harder to do so. Some, like soil erosion, are longstanding. The pumping capacity to deplete aquifers has emerged only in recent decades. The extraordinary growth in China’s automobile fleet and the associated paving of land have come only in the last several years.

Overplowing and overgrazing are creating a huge dust bowl in northern and western China. The numerous dust storms originating in the region each year in late winter and early spring are now regularly recorded on satellite images. For instance, on March 20, 2010, a suffocating dust storm enveloped Beijing, prompting the city’s weather bureau to warn that air quality was hazardous, urging people to stay inside or to cover their faces when outdoors. Visibility was low, forcing motorists to drive with lights on in daytime.

Beijing was not the only area affected. This particular dust storm engulfed scores of cities in five provinces, directly affecting over 250 million people. And it was not an isolated incident. In early spring, residents of eastern China hunker down as the dust storm season begins. Along with the difficulty in breathing and the dust that stings the eyes, people face a constant struggle to keep dust out of homes and to clear doorways and sidewalks of dust and sand. But the farmers and herders in the vast northwest, whose livelihoods are blowing away, are paying a far higher price.

Wang Tao, one of the world’s leading desert scholars, reports that from 1950 to 1975 an average of 600 square miles of land in China’s north and west turned to desert each year. By the turn of the century, nearly 1,400 square miles of land was going to desert annually. The trend is clear.

China is now at war. It is not invading armies that are claiming its territory, but expanding deserts. Old deserts are advancing and new ones are forming like guerrilla forces striking unexpectedly, forcing Beijing to fight on several fronts. And in this war with the deserts, China is losing.

A U.S. Embassy report entitled “Desert Mergers and Acquisitions” describes satellite images showing two deserts in north-central China expanding and merging to form a single, larger desert overlapping Inner Mongolia and Gansu Provinces. To the west in Xinjiang Province, two even larger deserts—the Taklimakan and Kumtag—are also heading for a merger. Highways running through the shrinking region between them are regularly inundated by sand dunes. 

An estimated 24,000 villages in northwestern China have been totally or partially abandoned since 1950 as sand dunes encroach on cropland, forcing farmers to leave. Unlike the U.S. Dust Bowl of the 1930s, when many farmers in the Great Plains migrated to California, China’s “Okies” do not have a West Coast to migrate to. They are moving to already heavily populated eastern cities. 

Overpumping, like overplowing, is also taking a toll. As the demand for food in China has soared, millions of Chinese farmers have drilled irrigation wells to expand their harvests. As a result, water tables are falling and wells are starting to go dry under the North China Plain, which produces half of China’s wheat and a third of its corn. The overpumping of aquifers for irrigation temporarily inflates food production, creating a food production bubble that eventually bursts when the aquifer is depleted. Earth Policy Institute estimates that some 130 million Chinese are being fed with grain produced by overpumping—by definition, a short term phenomenon. 

In a 2010 interview with Washington Post reporter Steve Mufson, Chinese groundwater expert He Qingcheng noted that underground water now meets three fourths of Beijing’s water needs. The city, he said, is drilling 1,000 feet down to reach water—five times deeper than 20 years ago. He notes that as the deep aquifer under the North China Plain is depleted, the region is losing its last water reserve—its only safety cushion. His concerns are mirrored in the unusually strong language of a World Bank report on China’s water situation that foresees “catastrophic consequences for future generations” unless water use and supply can quickly be brought back into balance. 

At the same time, China is losing cropland to residential and industrial construction, and to paving land for cars as their numbers multiply at a staggering rate. In 2009, vehicle sales totaled 14 million, surpassing those in the United States for the first time. In 2010, sales jumped to 18 million, and in 2011 they are projected to reach 20 million, the highest ever for any country. Adding 20 million cars to the fleet means paving one million acres for roads, highways, and parking lots. Cars are now competing with farmers for cropland in China. 

Rural China is also facing a tightening labor supply. As industrial wages rise, it becomes more difficult to find young people to work at low-return jobs in rural areas. Marginal cropland and smaller plots, no longer economical, are abandoned. As the rural labor supply shrinks, so does the potential for labor-intensive double-cropping (such as planting winter wheat and then corn as a summer crop in the north or producing two rice crops per year in the south), a practice that has dramatically expanded China’s grain production. 

As all these trends converge, China’s food supply is tightening. In November 2010, the food price index was up a politically dangerous 12 percent over a year earlier. Now after 15 years of near self-sufficiency in grain, it seems likely that China soon will turn to the world market for massive grain imports, as it already has done for 80 percent of its soybeans.

How much grain will China import? How will it compare with their soybean imports? No one knows for sure, but if China were to import only 20 percent of its grain, it would need 80 million tons, an amount only slightly less than the 90 million tons of grain the United States exports to all countries each year. This would put heavy additional pressure on scarce exportable supplies of wheat and corn.

For China, the handwriting is on the wall. It will almost certainly have to turn to the outside world for grain to avoid politically destabilizing food price rises. To import massive quantities of grain, China will necessarily draw heavily on the United States, far and away the world’s largest grain exporter. To be dependent on imported grain, much of it from the United States, will be China’s worst nightmare come true. 

For U.S. consumers, China’s worst nightmare could become ours. If China enters the U.S. grain market big time, as now seems inevitable, American consumers will find themselves competing with 1.4 billion Chinese consumers with fast-rising incomes for the U.S. grain harvest, driving up food prices. 

This would raise prices not only of the products made directly from grain, such as bread, pasta, and breakfast cereals, but also of meat, milk, and eggs, which require much larger quantities of grain to produce. If China were to import even one fifth of its grain, there would likely be pressure from U.S. consumers to restrict or to ban exports to China, as the United States did in the 1970s, when it banned soybean exports to Japan. 

But in dealing with China, the United States now faces a very different situation. When the U.S. Treasury Department auctions off securities every month to finance the U.S. fiscal deficit, China has been a major buyer. It holds over $900 billion worth of U.S. Treasury securities. China is our banker. In another time, another age, the United States could restrict access to U.S. grain as it did in the 1970s, but with China today this may not be possible. 

For Americans, who live in a country that has been the world’s breadbasket for more than half a century, a country that has never known food shortages or runaway food prices, the world is about to change. Like it or not, we are going to be sharing our grain harvest with the Chinese, no matter how much it raises our food prices.

Wednesday 23 March 2011

Tokyo tap water declared unsafe for babies

By Channel 4 News

So, does this mean that UK residents have been drinking radioactive tap water??

Tuesday 22 March 2011

Millions against Monsanto



http://www.organicconsumers.org/monsanto/index.cfm
March 26th
Protest at the White House and many other locations.

How to feed the world by 2050: biotech isn't the answer

Samuel Fromartz

We don't need to grow more food. Instead, we need to know the world's future population—and what these people will be eating.


With food prices hitting record highs, people are rioting and political regimes are crumbling. We can only imagine what it will be like when the global population rises to 9 billion in 2050 from just under 7 billion now. More riots, more deforestation, more hunger, more revolutions? How are these people going to be fed? The unequivocal answer we so often hear: biotechnology.
Let's ignore for the moment the cause of rising food prices, which have been attributed to everything from bad weather and poor harvests to higher oil prices that push up the cost of fertilizers, the rise of biofuels, even commodity index funds (which are bidding up futures, though I'm skeptical they are leading the parade). The thing I get hung up on is the "9 billion." It makes a great sound bite but what's behind the figure?

So far the vast resources of commercial biotechnology have gone to commodity crops such as corn and soybeans (and soon alfalfa). The majority ends up as animal feed, and thus meat, which is the least efficient way to produce calories. Meat also happens to be available to the richest people, not the poorest. So, we haven't really used genetically modified organisms (GMOs) to "feed the world." Instead we've used them bring down the cost of industrial meat production and incentivize a transition to a meat-centric diet. The loss of calories that result from feeding grains to animals instead of humans represents the annual calorie needs of more than 3.5 billion people, according to the UN Environmental Program. In short, GMOs arguably are making matters worse by fueling the production of more animal feed and food-competing biofuels. 

Be that as it may, we're still stuck with the 9 billion problem. Population is like compounding interest, with small changes producing big results down the road. So the growth rate is hugely important and it doesn't always do what's expected. National Geographic had an interesting take on this, showing that the argument popular in the 1960s about a "population bomb" largely turned out to be a fiction. By the early 1970s, fertility rates around the world had begun dropping faster than anyone had anticipated. Since then, the population growth rate has fallen by more than 40 percent:
In industrialized countries it took generations for fertility to fall to the replacement level or below. As that same transition takes place in the rest of the world, what has astonished demographers is how much faster it is happening there. ...
"The problem has become a bit passé," Hervé Le Bras (a French demographer) says. Demographers are generally confident that by the second half of this century we will be ending one unique era in history--the population explosion--and entering another, in which population will level out or even fall.
This is why numbers are important. On that score, Andrew Revkin had an interesting exchange on the Dot Earth blog at the Times that showed a range of opinion on what it would take to "feed the world." Revkin's post noted that Douglas Southgate, an agricultural economist at Ohio State University, "argues that a low growth scenario for population, leading to just under 8 billion people by 2050, could see a 26-percent drop in food prices even with substantial rise in consumption." This is considered the low-range for 2050, but considering how off the mark Malthusians were in the past, it shouldn't be entirely discounted.

But let's say we do get to 9 billion. The impact on resources, it turns out, depends a lot on what we eat. Vaclav Smil, a University of Manitoba analyst, pointed out to Revkin "a menu of possible food lifestyles," which for a world of 9 billion meant either bountiful supplies or scarcity.  Here's the spectrum:


1) eating enough to survive with reduced lifespans (Ethiopia),
2) eating enough to have some sensible though limited choices and to live near-full lifespans when considering other (hygienic, health care) circumstances (as in the better parts of India today),
3) having more than enough of overall food energy but still a limited choice of plant foods and only a healthy minimum of animal foods and live close to or just past 70 (China of the late 1980s and 1990s),
4) not wanting more carbohydrates and shifting more crop production and imports to [livestock] feed, not food, to eat more animals products, having overall some 3,000 kcal/capita a day and living full spans (China now),
5) having gross surpluses of everything, total supply at 3,500-3,700 kcal/day, eating too much animal protein, wasting 35-40% of all food, living record life spans, getting sick (U.S. and E.U. today).


Obviously, we want to avoid option one and two, as much as possible. Option three and four would mean 1 billion people who lack enough food today would be better off. But Smil says, "The world eating between levels 3-4 would not know what to do with today's food." In other words, we have enough already.  But, he also adds, "the world at 5 is impossible." Nor is it desirable, considering the obesity crisis and health risks.
So really, the question isn't how will we feed 9 billion by 2050? The question is how many people will we really have and what will they be eating? 

Poverty of course plays a big role in both these issues because, as Juergen Voegele, director, agriculture and rural development, the World Bank, pointed out to Revkin: "We already have close to one billion people who go hungry today, not because there is not enough food in the world but because they cannot afford to buy it." 
Raising incomes, or course, is a difficult nut -- one that doesn't succumb to a solution hatched in a lab. But more income means better-educated families, and even declining population growth. The flip side, though, is that rising incomes are also associated with higher meat consumption, which can get us closer to option five on Smil's lifestyle if we are not careful. So the best case: to raise incomes and to incentivize less resource-intensive food consumption. 

But we don't need to become vegans to save the world (which would doom us even if we did because so few would go along). In many developing countries, such an approach would amount to culinary imperialism, given the importance of meat for both income generation, the result of having a cow or goat or two, and as a source of much-needed calories for children from milk and scant meat. Never mind the use of manure to grow crops. We're not talking about factory farms here, but animals that play a central role in cultures and livelihoods.

As the Nat Geo article concluded:
... it will be a hard thing for the planet if ... people are eating meat and driving gasoline-powered cars at the same rate as Americans now do. It's too late to keep the new middle class of 2030 from being born; it's not too late to change how they and the rest of us will produce and consume food and energy.
This post also appears on Chewswise.com.

Monsanto and GMO-s


GMO's are made by manipulation of extremely deadly viruses & bacteria (such as E. coli) that have been engineered to be IMMUNE TO ANTIBIOTICS (Pause video at 8:08). Monsanto spends millions of dollars each year in order to "sugar" coat the facts of what GMO's actually are and more importantly, how they are made.


This video straight-forwardly explains the scientific facts on how Monsanto manufactures their GMO's (Genetically Modified Organisms) by simply removing all the corporate propaganda, the "smoke & mirrors" if you will.


Monsanto's greed, combined with their quest to monopolize all aspects of food & seed on the planet, has knowingly allowed the proverbial Reaper free upon the world.


GMO's are now acting much like the deadly virus and pre-cancer type cells they are made from... by infecting other organisms that were once pure and healthy.

We as a people should be demanding Monsanto be held for crimes against humanity for the atrocities they have committed and what can be reasonably seen as the start of the end to all life as we know it.

The Bee disappearance is in perfect unison with the time line of Monsanto's uncontrolled release of GMO's into the environment; but due to Monsanto's influence & corruption in governments across the globe, any scientist that tries to inform the public and raise the alarm about the Bee's & GMO's is destroyed financially, as well as their careers'.


After watching these videos, will you knowingly look the other way and FEED your family GM foods; even though you now know you could be killing or permanently harming your child/family? 


If you are OUTRAGED at Monsanto's poisoning our food, milk and health; Please do the following actions... make a difference:


1) Call and WRITE (pen & paper) your Legislators


Demand:

2) That they FULLY endorse: "H.R. 6636 GENETICALLY ENGINEERED FOOD RIGHT TO KNOW ACT"

3) An immediate moratorium on all GMO's and their Byproducts!

4) FDA change their findings on GMO's as being "Generally Recognized As Safe"! This was done with ZERO testing by the FDA!

5) Demand a full investigation into the criminal conflicts of interest as it pertains to the head personnel of Monsanto and the FDA being one in the same.

6) Demand congress pass a "whistle blowers protection" for all professional scientists in order to end direct or indirect intimidation by Corporations, Universities, Colleges or Government. Science should never be a result of intimidation.


Public Library of Science


Scientific American

Journal of the American Medical Association

Science Direct:

CDC (Center Disease Control):

MRSA Wikipedia

Monday 21 March 2011

The mouse that roared

Do you value the future health and wellbeing of yourself, your children, your grandchildren and your country? Please read this and send it on to anyone and everyone who is important in your life. 
Jenny Drew, Dunedin, 17 March 2011

On Tuesday 8th March 2011 the New Zealand Royal Society held a conference in Wellington to discuss “The Implications of Geo-engineering Schemes for New Zealand” as a means of combating global warming. Several options were discussed but the majority vote was for aerosol spraying from aircraft of tonnes of aluminium, barium oxide, fluoride and other toxic chemicals on a regular and frequent basis. This layer of fine metal particles in the atmosphere will supposedly help reflect back the sun's rays, thus contributing to cooling of the earth. Obviously much of the spray contents will eventually reach the earth by freefall or in rain.

The scientists agreed that the effects this spraying might have on humans and the environment are NOT KNOWN at this stage.

The conference will recommend to the government that aerosol spraying be introduced and that New Zealand will lead the world in this pilot scheme.

Excuse me - did they say 'pilot scheme'? This kind of aerosol spraying (often known as chemtrails) has been done covertly for at least two years in New Zealand, particularly over the upper part of the South Island and over Northland. 

People living in these areas may have noticed jet streams that don't dissipate as normal condensation trails (contrails) do, but spread out over the next hour or so to form fine cirrus-type cloud before forming a murky hazy area of cloud cover. Metals in the atmosphere often cause rainbow colours around the edges or in the middle of clouds, and may leave a coloured circle around the sun or moon. Noticed these? There may also be odd-shaped clouds. Take a look up - become a sky-watcher! 

This aerosol spraying is definitely NOT confined to New Zealand. Large areas of the USA, UK, Western Europe and Australia are regularly and heavily sprayed, and have been for many years now. Levels of toxicity (particularly aluminium) in the soils and rainwater, especially in the US are many times above recommended safe levels; legal action is now being taken by awareness groups in the US. Alzheimer’s, which is strongly linked to aluminium, is endemic, and respiratory problems have increased dramatically. Fish, bees and birds have been dying in huge numbers. It is scary to note that Monsanto, the giant US corporation, is now producing aluminium-resistant seed. 

Is this what we want for ourselves, our beautiful country, and especially our children and grand-children?
Our government is currently under extreme pressure from powerful international forces to officially introduce aerosol spraying in our skies.

Back in the '80s New Zealand was dubbed 'THE MOUSE THAT ROARED' when we said a resounding 'NO' to nuclear products entering our country. We must say 'NO' again, loudly and clearly.
As a people concerned for our own future and that of our children, we must become better informed to pull together and fight against this gross contamination of our country. Deliberate aerosol spraying, whatever the intention, is a CRIME AGAINST HUMANITY and must be stopped – somehow. 

What can we do? 
1. Email this to everyone on your mailing list, and ask them to do the same – it is essential that as many New Zealanders as possible know about this even before it gets pushed through parliament.
2. Email this to your local MP.
3. Watch for any news in the media – if or when it appears it will come heavily disguised as good works – e.g. something positive NZ is doing as world leaders in the battle against global warming.
4. Write letters to the newspapers and see if they are published (unlikely, as this has been a hushed-up subject for years, but try). Call in to your talk-back radio.
5. Talk about it amongst your friends.
6. Start a petition to parliament.
7. Bring it to the attention of schools, kindergartens, churches, work places, discuss it in meetings.
8. Increase your own knowledge about this issue - it is very important. Read about it on the internet and learn more for yourself. Watch the short PowerPoint presentation - no sound is needed: 
9. Watch the DVD “What in the World are they Spraying?” 
(or email jdrew@xtra.co.nz for a copy you can use on your television - small p&p cost only)

Further links:

Chemtrails causing Illness in New Zealand's beautiful Marlborough

9. Optional: if you are in support of a ban on stratospheric aerosol spraying, please add your name before sending this on to others. If you only want to add your name and not send to others, we thank you and could you please return this to Jenny. If you are No. 25, 50, etc. please also return the email to jdrew@xtra.co.nz . to give an idea of numbers and how far this information has spread. 

Note: This is not an official petition - these names will not be given to any authority. 

Gardasil-did you know?

"Homeopathy works for me"



For more videos, please click here.

Sunday 20 March 2011

No danger, No concern, No sanity

On March 15 Michi Okugawa wrote, “The situation in Tokyo is getting worse. The number of people who are panicking is increasing with more and more people trying to get out of Tokyo or out of the country. The nuclear plant explosion is having a large effect in our daily lives. The biggest problem is transportation. Tokyo is darker now due to power saving. As I am writing this, more people have decided to evacuate from Tokyo. I am living my usual life but the surrounding is in a panic.”


The government of the world’s third-biggest economy has been 

insisting that there is no widespread threat of radiation but
confirmed that fresh foodstuffs are now showing signs of contamination.


The double speak has officially started so now we know that the trouble is real, dangerously dark and that we will be treated like cows instead of intelligent human beings. On March 19, 2011 it’s been only three short days we have gone to the brink of an unimaginable catastrophe that does not seem so bad if you read the mainstream press. Only light radioactive showers predicted for the weekend over southern California. Nothing to worry about!

The Japanese government said Saturday the 19th radioactive iodine turned has already turned up in tap water in Tokyo and five other areas. Of course they add in the double speak saying that it’s only “small but safe amounts of” of some very dangerous stuff.

Best way of conceptualizing this event: The largest nuclear complex in the world is now in the process of becoming the hottest radioactive emitter in the world with deadly plutonium in the mix. Very soon the showers will turn heavy and no one is going to want to be in the jet streams path. Already they are starting to measure the exposure to the people local to the disaster in terms of how many CAT scans of radiation they are being exposed to as if these medical scans were safe, which they are not.

Nuclear power plants are really dangerous facilities put

in practical use on stipulation that they can “completely seal

in radiation,” while radioactive weapons commit an impermissible
crime scattering radioactive materials in the environment.
Professor Katsuma Yagasaki


At the power plant site itself, with almost all the reactors and spent fuel ponds in various stages of meltdown we have a super lethal situation that can only get worse. Representative Michael Burgess, Republican of Texas, asked for detail about the radiation levels at the Japanese nuclear plant. “Are we talking about radiation equivalent to a chest X-ray? A CAT scan?” he asked. Gregory B. Jaczko, the chairman of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission replied, “Levels that would be lethal with a fairly short period of time.”

Harold Denton, a former senior official with the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission was faced with the Three Mile Island crisis, holding daily news conferences. Talking about the situation in Japan he said, “This is certainly far worse than Three Mile Island.” But the Japanese are not rating it that seriously yet but we each passing day they will see and be forced to admit the more than partial destruction of the northern part of their nation, which in all likelihood include the Tokyo metropolitan area of 30 million people.

There are brave men fighting what could end up being a losing battle against a nuclear Armageddon for Japan and even other large parts of the northern hemisphere. These men will certainly all die so up close they need to be to shoot their water cannon from fire and police trucks.

Some of that lethal stuff is already falling down in “safe” dosages in California and everyone there is being told to not sweat about it—it’s perfectly safe. And even though it can be measured on instruments they want you to believe that your cells will not pick up on the radioactive particles. A diplomat who has access to radiation tracking by the U.N.’s Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty Organization told the Associated Press in Vienna that initial readings show radiation has in fact reached California.

But a little is good for you so really don’t worry about a thing. You better believe I am deadly serious that some people will fight for the devil, for the death principle, which is what radiation is. I have seen doctors fight for the right to use deadly mercury in vaccines and most dentists have not completely given up on mercury laden dental amalgam. Almost everyone in medicine and dentistry thinks fluoride is wonderful for the children. Once there were some psychologists who actually went so far as to publish their new philosophy that child sexual abuse really was not such a bad thing after all. No sanity is the watchword here - but yes I agree. Radiation is healthy, going out in the sun, without toxic sunscreen exposes one to healthy radiation that provides the most wonderful biochemical life-giving effects. But we are going to be talking about really nasty radiation coming from Japan and let’s see what the dosages and exposures are in the end.

In principle, using the Atomic Energy Control Board’s (AECB) regulatory limits, we can calculate that 0.1 micrograms of plutonium can overdose one person while noting that maximum safe exposure limits is placed at 0.56 micrograms maximum full body exposure and 0.25 micrograms for lung exposure. “Experiments with beagle dogs suggest that about 27 millionths of a gram of insoluble plutonium would be sufficient to cause lung cancer in an adult human being with virtual certainty, with significant risks probably associated with far lower doses,” report International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War.According to the Canadian Coalition for Nuclear Responsibility (CCNR) 0.1 grams would overdose one million people, one gram, ten million people, 100 grams, one billion people and 600 grams, six billion people.

“A rapid release of one kilogram of plutonium at ground level in dispersible, inhalable form would cause a public health emergency of the first magnitude. Plutonium air concentrations could be on the order of hundreds of micrograms per cubic meter of air at one kilometer from the release site. Individuals breathing this air would inhale enough plutonium to cause cancer with certainty within minutes,” said Dr. Edwin S. Lyman of the Nuclear Control Institute. This is the nightmare of nightmares. There is an incredible amount of plutonium in this plant that could very well put us all in supercritical danger.

350 tons of uranium is equal to 

about a kilogram of plutonium.

Dr. Chris Busby


The Pentagon has misled the world with claims that its DU is safe. They have lied about depleted uranium regardless of how many of their own soldiers become ill and die from it and from the toxic vaccines they administer in mega doses before troops are deployed into war theaters. The Pentagon has maintained that DU shells are safe because they contain only mildly radioactive uranium when in reality depleted uranium also contains small amounts of plutonium and other highly radioactive elements. Despite the authorities’ attempts at concealment, the truth is out.

Since World War II, accumulated radiation has increased the radiation burden to the global community. Nuclear weapons testing, nuclear power plants, radiation accidents like Three Mile Island and Chernobyl, and terrible nuclear accidents from earlier years in Russia have all contributed to increasing the overall radiation contamination of the global environment. We cannot escape exposure because we breathe the air, drink the water and eat the food from contaminated soils.

When uranium burns into particles, it will enter human bodies

ingested with drinking water and food, or inhaled with air. In this case,

the whole radiation and chemical toxicity will be released in the body. 
Professor Katsuma Yagasaki


According to Dr. Katsuma Yagasaki, “DU dust-like particles can enter human bodies, and once taken into the body, they will become tens of millions times more hazardous. Newly released data indicate that low-level radiation is more likely to cause biochemical abnormalities than intensive high-level radiation. It is wrong to make light of the hazard of low-level radiation.”

After the “Shock and Awe” campaign in Iraq in 2003, very fine particles of depleted uranium were captured with larger sand and dust particles in filters in Britain. These particles had traveled in 7-9 days from Iraqi battlefields as far as 2400 miles away. The radiation measured in the atmosphere quadrupled within a few weeks after the beginning of the 2003 campaign, and at one of the five monitoring locations, the levels required two official alerts to the British Environment Agency.

Within nine days of the start of the Iraq war on March 19, 2003, 

higher levels of uranium were picked up on five sites in Berkshire.

London Times


The Ministry of Defense refused to acknowledge the possibility of any connection between the use of atomic weaponry in Iraq and these readings in England, saying the uranium was of a “natural origin” and there was no evidence that depleted uranium had reached Britain from Iraq.

According to Dr. Chris Busby and Dr. Saoirse Morgan, who forced the British government to release the above information, “On the basis of the mean increase in uranium in air of about 500nBq/m3 we use respiration data to calculate that each person in the area inhaled some 23 million uranium particles of diameter 0.25 microns. As far as we know, this is the first evidence that uranium aerosols from battle use have been shown to travel so far.” The military, essential partners in everything nuclear, have been playing with the nuclear fires on the battlefields and the stuff is getting back home. Typical they would not tell us commoners anything about it. Will they tell us when things get completely out of control in Japan?

The shattering truth of all this leads us to the conclusion that radiation travels with ease on the winds and the jet stream long, very long distances, so it’s a big mistake to assume we’re out of harm’s way. Busby and Morgan made it perfectly clear that “the evidence from the present analysis is implicit in the results; i.e., the increases found clearly demonstrate that the uranium particles are capable of long-distance travel.”

Busby and Morgan continue saying, “Despite many pieces of evidence that the uranium aerosols are long-lived in the environment and are able to travel considerable distances, this is the first evidence as far as we know, that they are able to travel thousands of miles. The distance traveled from Baghdad to Reading following the wind patterns implicit in the pressure systems at the time is about 2,500 miles. Although this transport may be hard to believe at first, the regular desert sand events that occur in the UK should teach us that the planet is not such a large place, and that with regard to certain long-lived atmospheric pollutants, no man is an island.”

After traveling 2,500 miles, if the exposure to the English was 

23 million uranium particles, it is anyone’s guess the amount of 

fallout that reached the United States. Odds are that everyone in
the northern hemisphere was contaminated to one degree or another.



Special Note on Iodine: Dr. Miller says, “Radioisotopes pose an important health risk to man in nuclear accidents associated with electric power generation due to their uptake by the thyroid glands. Topical application of tincture of iodine (I) was found to be effective in blocking the thyroid uptake of orally administered 131I [131-Iodine] in humans. Abdominal skin application of tincture of I [iodine] resulted in an approximately 82 percent reduction in the uptake of 131I by the thyroid gland. The effectiveness varied among individuals and may have depended on the quantity applied and on the application site. In each study group, elevated levels of serum I were observed. This may be an attractive alternative method of mass protection from radioisotopes of I following nuclear accidents. Serum I concentrations peaked at approximately two hours after topical application of tincture of I.”


Dr. David Brownstein says, “13mg/day of iodine prevents approximately 96 percent of radioactive iodine from binding to the thyroid gland. That is the approximate dosage of iodine ingested daily by the Japanese. This is over 100x the average daily dose ingested by Americans. Please keep in mind it is not just the thyroid gland that is at risk with exposure to radioactive iodine. The breasts, ovaries, uterus, prostate, skin, and other organs all bind and require iodine for optimal functioning. In fact, every cell in our body requires iodine for optimal functioning. Therefore, if we are iodine deficient, exposure to radioactive iodine can potentially result in damage to all the cells of the body. My experience has shown over 95 percent of patients are deficient in iodine. I believe iodine deficiency is one of the underlying causes of the epidemic of cancer of the breast, thyroid, ovaries, uterus and prostate. Furthermore, iodine deficiency is the underlying cause of thyroid disorders including Hashimoto’s disease, Grave’s disease, goiter, and hypothyroidism. Our iodine levels have fallen 50 percent over the last 30 years. During that time, all of the above conditions have been rising at near epidemic rates.”

Mark Sircus Ac., OMD

Director International Medical Veritas Association