Showing posts with label corn. Show all posts
Showing posts with label corn. Show all posts

Sunday, 5 October 2025

What Big Ag doesn’t want you to know about GMOs and glyphosate


For anyone even mildly tuned in to the food movement, Monsanto (now Bayer) and other ag companies have shaped the global industrial food system with GMOs and glyphosate (Roundup). Now they’re using “gene editing” to further shape nature. Behind the marketing slogans of “precision” and rising to the challenge of “feeding the world,” a different story emerges — one of regulatory capture, hidden side effects, and a food supply increasingly engineered in ways most people never see, can’t really taste, but feel distinctly in their health.
• The incalculable risk of releasing engineered organisms into nature with no recall button
In this interview, Jeffrey Smith, founder of the Institute for Responsible Technology, explains:
• Why gene-edited foods don’t need to be labeled or safety-tested before hitting the grocery shelves (and that we’re probably eating them now!)
• How gene editing like CRISPR can unleash “surprise side effects”
• Why glyphosate became one of the most widely used and controversial chemicals on earth
• The lawsuits, cover-ups, and regulatory failures surrounding Monsanto, now Bayer, products

This conversation pulls back the curtain on the experimentation on our food supply, and what you can do right now to protect your family’s health and avoid stealth GMOs.

Disclaimer:
*This interview is for educational and documentary purposes. It presents opinions and ongoing scientific debates. It is not medical advice. For health decisions, consult a qualified clinician.*

Related links:
Institute for Responsible Technology: https://responsibletechnology.org
Secret Ingredients film: https://secretingredientsfilm.com

About Collapse Life
Read more at https://www.collapselife.com and join our newsletter.

Friday, 26 June 2015

Why are we being fed by a poison expert?


Monsanto now has control over as much as 90 percent of seed genetics on the planet.

Why does this matter? Watch this humorous, entertaining, and chillingly accurate 5-minute video to find out. Then tell everyone you know.

Want to take action? Share this video! And if you want to go further, you can join the Food Revolution Network’s Campaign, calling on Coca-Cola to stop fighting GMO labeling.

Coke says it supports transparency and consumer empowerment. But last year, the company spent more than $2 million fighting against labeling of genetically engineered foods in Oregon and Colorado.



Source:
http://foodrevolution.org/blog/monsanto-gmos-video/

Saturday, 22 November 2014

Poison on the Platter

By The Institue for Responsible Technology

Bollywood filmmaker superstar Mahesh Bhatt launches a scathing attack on biotech multinational companies and compliant government regulators, showing how their dangerous genetically engineered foods and crops comprise one of the greatest dangers on earth. Released in February 2008, the hard-hitting Poison on the Platter is generating unprecedented fervor against genetically modified organisms (GMOs) throughout India. It is probably the most talked about film in the country.

Mahesh Bhatt says, “in their mad rush to capture the multi-billion dollar Indian agricultural and food industry, the biotech multinational companies are bulldozing warnings by scientists about the adverse impact of GM foods on health and environment, and hurtling the mankind toward a disaster, which will be far more destructive than anything the world has seen so far, simply because it will affect every single person living on this planet”.

Bhatt’s film makes a mockery of Government of India’s claim of not allowing import of any GM foods in the country as it conclusively demonstrates that supermarkets in India are flooded with harmful food stuff and biotech MNCs are cashing on the ignorance of unsuspecting consumers in India.

Trials of GM foods on lab animals across the world have repeatedly shown that they cause bleeding stomachs, and adversely affect brain, lungs, liver, kidney, pancreas and intestine. They have been even linked to higher offspring mortality and causing infertility.

“Are we ready to eat a food that has the potential to stunt our growth, impair our immune system and adversely affect all our vital organs,” asks Ajay Kanchan, director of the documentary, adding that “It’s shocking that instead of protecting the interests of farmers and consumers, regulatory bodies in India are pandering to the greed of biotech MNCs like Monsanto, whose track record is littered with lies, deceptions and notorious ability to corrupt the regulatory bodies all over the world”.

“I can say with absolute confidence that there is irrefutable and overwhelming evidence that genetically engineered foods are harmful and that they are not being evaluated properly by the governments of India, United States, the European Union, or anywhere in the world,” says Jeffrey M. Smith, Founder Director, Institute of Responsible Technology and author of two widely respected books on health impact of GM foods – Seeds of Deception and Genetic Roulette. He added, “this is one of the most dangerous technologies ever introduced on earth, and it’s being deployed in our food supply. It’s madness, what we need is a political willingness to say no more.”

Tuesday, 18 November 2014

The Toxic Baby

Filmmaker Penelope Jagessar Chaffer was curious about the chemicals she was exposed to while pregnant: Could they affect her unborn child? So she asked scientist Tyrone Hayes to brief her on one he studied closely: atrazine, a herbicide used on corn. 


Sunday, 31 August 2014

GMO whistleblower Dr. Thierry Vrain unveils insider information on engineered food



Thierry Vrain retired 10 years ago after a long career as a soil biologist and ended head of a department of molecular biology running his own research program to engineer nematode resistance genes in crops. In his retirement career as a gardener he learned five or six years ago how the soil ecosystem really functions and have been preaching ever since. He find himself with a good knowledge of genetic engineering technologies surrounded by people in fear of being hurt by the food they eat. He found that he cannot ignore them anymore and has joined the campaign to educate consumers about the potential health problems reported in the recent scientific literature.

Saturday, 2 November 2013

Genetic Roulette -- The Gamble of Our Lives

Genetic Roulette (2012) documentary is an investigation into the deteriorating health of Americans. Evidence put forth suggests that allowing genetically modified organisms to enter the food supply is to blame.
(Watch these documentaries while you still can. A lot of documentaries are removed from the "cancer" cathegorie as well. I spent considerable time to find and repost them from elsewhere.) 


Monday, 17 June 2013

CFS Launches Class Action Lawsuit against Monsanto

By the Center For Food Safety

Last week, CFS and Pacific Northwest wheat farmers launched a class action lawsuit against Monsanto for the escape of Monsanto’s illegal GE wheat in Oregon. Support our work to hold Monsanto accountable!

You probably read the news that the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) recently announced that unapproved, genetically engineered (GE) wheat was found contaminating an Oregon farmer’s field. The GE wheat, known as Roundup Ready, was developed by the Monsanto Company to withstand direct application of Roundup (glyphosate) herbicide, and was never approved for sale. 

The discovery of unapproved Roundup Ready wheat in a farmer's field in Oregon, years after Monsanto terminated field testing, is just the latest example of Monsanto's inability to keep their engineered genes under control. Until Monsanto and USDA begin to take gene flow from field tests more seriously, we can expect GE contamination to continue to cause havoc.

CFS is not standing idly by hoping Monsanto and USDA do the right thing. We are taking action. Last week, Center for Food Safety and Pacific Northwest wheat farmers filed a class action lawsuit against Monsanto. Center for Food Safety and Pacific Northwest wheat farmers are representing the broad class of farmers affected by this contamination, seeking monetary compensation for farmers who have lost export markets, and forcing Monsanto to take measures to clean up the contamination and ensure it never happens again. 


As we’ve warned for over a decade, GE crops simply can’t be controlled once they’re released into the environment. Past transgenic contamination episodes involving GE corn and GE rice triggered over $1 billion in losses and economic hardship to farmers, and recalls of food products containing illegal GE corn. CFS has been there every time, fighting in the courts, in the halls of Congress, and in communities to protect our food, our farms, and our environment from these risky GE crops.

With your support, we’ve been working to hold biotech companies like Monsanto accountable and tighten regulations over their experimental GE crop field trials for over a decade. And we’ve had a lot of successes -- like our past litigation over similar field trials in Oregon and Hawaii for other GE crops in which we won substantial victories over USDA and industry for their field trial abuses and failures. Because of this litigation, we now have the legal ability to challenge the legality of field trials, and USDA can no longer ignore their environmental and socioeconomic impacts. We’ve even forced USDA to publicly admit new field trial contamination incidents, like this one, that they otherwise tried to keep secret. 


Center for Food Safety
660 Pennsylvania Ave, SE, #302
Washington DC 20003
phone (202) 547-9359 | fax (202) 547-9429

Tuesday, 9 April 2013

Argentina - A Poster Child for the Health Hazards of GMO Crops

By Dr Mercola

Argentina’s population is being sickened by massive spraying of herbicides on its genetically engineered soya fields. Glyphosate, the main ingredient in Roundup, is blamed for the dramatic increase in devastating birth defects as well as cancer. Sterility and miscarriages are also increasing.

A 2012 nutritional analysis of GMO versus non-GMO corn shows shocking differences in nutritional content. Non-GMO corn contains 437 times more calcium, 56 times more magnesium, and 7 times more manganese than GMO corn.

GMO corn was also found to contain 13 ppm of glyphosate, compared to zero in non-GMO corn. The EPA standard for glyphosate in American water supplies is 0.7 ppm, and organ damage in animals has occurred at levels as low as 0.1 ppm.

GMO corn contains extremely high levels of formaldehyde—about 200 times the amount found toxic to animals.

Unfortunately, President Obama recently signed into law a spending bill that included a devastating provision that puts Monsanto above the law. The provision limits the ability of judges to stop Monsanto and/or farmers from growing or harvesting genetically engineered crops, even if courts find evidence of potential health risks.

Source and more info here.

Friday, 5 October 2012

Thursday, 20 September 2012

French Study Finds Tumors and Organ Damage in Rats Fed Monsanto Corn

By Mike Ludwig, Truthout | Report 

Rats fed a lifetime diet of Monsanto's genetically engineered corn or exposed to the company's popular Roundup herbicide developed tumors and suffered severe organ damage, according to a French study released on Wednesday.

The study could have a big impact on the battle over a California ballot proposal that would require groceries containing genetically engineered ingredients to be labeled as such. Monsanto has already donated $7.1 million to the campaign to defeat the proposal, known as Proposition 37.

The study links varying levels of both the Roundup herbicide and the transgenes in Monsanto's patented NK603 corn to mammary tumors and severe liver and kidney damage.

The rats were either fed the NK603 corn alone, corn treated with agricultural levels of Roundup, or given water treated with Roundup at low levels commonly found in contaminated drinking water and used in agriculture in the United States. In each group, there were two to three more deaths compared to control groups, and the rats on the Monsanto diet died more quickly.

Gilles-Eric Séralini, a professor of molecular biology at the University of Caen who lead the research team, told reporters on Wednesday that the rats' diet reflected the kind of exposure that humans who eat genetically engineered food should expect.

"This is around the level [that] the American population may eat, where, unfortunately GMOs are not labeled," Séralini said. "In Europe, we have this labeling, and it helps us to avoid these compounds if necessary and promote personal choices."


The research team concluded that NK603's transgenic traits and the endocrine-disrupting effects of Roundup herbicide could explain the results. The study is the first of its kind to link enzymes overexpressed by transgenes to health problems, Séralini said.

Endocrine-disrupting chemicals cause health problems and cancers by impacting hormonal glands in mammals and are especially dangerous to children. Pesticide and herbicide critics often fear that chemicals used to kill weeds and pests could potentially be endocrine disruptors in humans.

Monsanto's NK603 and other varieties of corn are genetically engineered to tolerate Roundup herbicide, which contains the plant poison glyphosate and other additives, so that farmers can spray whole fields of crops to kill weeds while sparing the genetically modified corn. Genetically engineered crops are also known as genetically modified organisms, or GMO's.

Good News for Proposition 37

"The results of this study are worrying," said Gary Ruskin, who manages a campaign to pass the food-labeling initiative in California. "They underscore the importance of giving California families the right to know whether our food is genetically engineered, and to decide for ourselves whether we want to gamble with our health by eating GMO foods that have not been adequately studied and have not been proven safe."

Ruskin's Yes on Proposition 37 campaign, which is supported by organic food companies and alternative health groups, has been vastly outspent by a campaign to defeat the ballot initiative funded by millions of dollars in donations from biotech chemical companies and food manufacturers such as Monsanto, DuPont, Bayer and Nestle.

Polls taken this summer, however, show that Proposition 37 remains popular among a majority of voters despite a multimillion-dollar campaign against the initiative.

GMO Information War

A spokesperson for Monsanto told Truthout that the company will thoroughly review the data, but pointed out that scientific claims made by Séralini in regards to previous studies on rats have been refuted by a European food regulatory agency.

In the past, Séralini, an independent scientist celebrated by biotech critics, has publicly wrangled with peer scientists, pro-industry groups and regulators over interpretations of data from 90-day studies on rats conducted by biotech companies that were used to justify regulatory approvals of Monsanto crops in several countries.

Séralini and his team believe the study released this week is more conclusive because it spans two years and followed the rats' entire lifecycle.

"It's bizarre and dramatic for us that the US government," said Séralini, "has not requested to make serious tests before releasing these products into the environment because these GMOs are pesticide sponges, and we know that pesticides can be harmful to humans."

Séralini also pointed out that his team started to see tumors after four months, while the industry studies on rats were limited to a three-month period.

"It shows the genetically modified foods should be withdrawn," said biotech critic and author Jeffrey Smith. Smith said the study further confirms reports he has heard from doctors and veterinarians who say they've seen their patient's health improve after they stopped eating genetically engineered foods.

In 2010, a lead embryologist in Argentina named Dr. Andrés Carrasco survived an attacked by an angry mob determined to keep him from speaking at a public event about his own research on Roundup, which found that the herbicide caused deformations in chicken embryos that resembled birth defects in humans being reported in the country's agricultural areas where the herbicide is heavily used.

Copyright, Truthout. May not be reprinted without permission.



Sunday, 20 May 2012

GMO film project

By the Globonsomeday

I decided to share the video trailer to an upcoming film, GMO Film Project, which shows a father's discovery of GMOs via the symbolic act of Haitian farmers burning seeds in defiance of Monsanto's "gift" of 430 t of hybrid corn and vegetable seeds after the devastating earthquake of January 2010.


The film description notes that after a journey to Haiti to find out why hungry farmers would burn seeds, the real awakening of what has happened to food in the United States and what is at stake at the global food supply.

The dangers of unknown health and environmental risks, takeover of seeds, toxins, and food monopoly meets with a growing resistance of organic farmers, concerned citizens, and a movement to take back what has been lost.

Multinational agrochemical companies such as Monsanto (known for Agent Orange, rBGH, PCBs and Roundup) and Dow (known for Napalm) are contributing towards producing genetically modified food that have never been fully labelled or fully tested.  Indeed Monsanto has resisted attempts at requiring labelling.

The small handful of corporations are attempting to control everything we eat worldwide - through buying, genetically modifying, and patenting seeds.

Furthermore, there were 148 600 000 ha of GM crops worldwide in 2010 (of which 66 800 000 ha were grown in the United States alone). One can find the full statistics, as well as which GM crops are grown country-by-country, here.

However, there is still time to save our planet and protect our food supply. As mentioned in previous articles in this blog, we can also take action ourselves. In addition to demanding full labelling of food, boycott anything from big agribusiness, stick to local, organic, natural and ideally fresh produce. Avoid anything with GMO, anything resulting from factory farming or intensive farming as well as also harmful chemicals (including pesticides and herbicides).

Further information

Thursday, 17 May 2012

High-fructose corn syrup linked to autism

By WC Douglass MD

The feds want you to believe the dramatic 78 percent rise in autism cases over the past decade is nothing more than a bookkeeping trick. There aren't more autistic kids -- just more docs who've learned to recognize the condition. 

Baloney! 

I'm sure more diagnoses -- and even OVER-diagnoses -- is part of that increase, but I'm just as sure that more kids are autistic than ever before. And a big part of the reason is the dramatic rise in exposure to toxic heavy metals. 

Now, one new study shows how the junkiest of all junk ingredients -- the high-fructose corn syrup used in… well… just about everything these days -- can cause your mercury levels to shoot so high you might reach the planet that shares its name. 

Former FDA toxicologist -- and noted agency whistleblower -- Renee Dufault says HFCS depletes the body of zinc… and zinc is needed to chase out mercury. 

Ms. Dufault is the same researcher who found low levels of mercury in HFCS several years ago -- so if you put two and two together here, you get more toxic heavy metals and less ability to rid the body of them, all in one convenient package. 

On paper anyway, it sounds like a recipe for autism. Out in the real world, it's just a small piece of the puzzle -- because HFCS is hardly the biggest source of mercury. 

This dangerous metal is in dental fillings, vaccines (especially flu shots), seafood, CFL light bulbs, and more. It's even turning up in the water supply, so you could be poisoning your family every time you open the tap (one more reason to make sure you have a reverse osmosis water filter protecting your home). 

And mercury itself is only a piece of the autism puzzle -- because other toxins, lousy eating habits, and hormonal problems can all play a role. 

I can't give you a one-size-fits-all answer on this. But if you suspect a little one in the family might be the next autism statistic, get the kid to a naturopathic physician ASAP. 

Early diagnosis and proper drug-free treatment can make all the difference in the world.

Thursday, 23 February 2012

Dow and Monsanto Join Forces to Poison America's Heartland

By Richard Schiffman
Truthout

In a match that some would say was made in hell, the nation's two leading producers of agrochemicals have joined forces in a partnership to reintroduce the use of the herbicide 2,4-D, one half of the infamous defoliant Agent Orange, which was used by American forces to clear jungle during the Vietnam War. These two biotech giants have developed a weed management program that, if successful, would go a long way toward a predicted doubling of harmful herbicide use in America's corn belt during the next decade.

The problem for corn farmers is that "superweeds" have been developing resistance to America's best-selling herbicide Roundup, which is being sprayed on millions of acres in the Midwest and elsewhere. Dow Agrosciences has developed a strain of corn that it says will solve the problem. The new genetically modified variety can tolerate 2,4-D, which will kill off the Roundup-resistant weeds, but leave the corn standing. Farmers who opt into this system will be required to double-dose their fields with a deadly cocktail of Roundup plus 2,4-D, both of which are manufactured by Monsanto.


Researchers say that the effect of 2,4-D on human health is still not fully understood. But it may be a risk factor for conditions like Hodgkin's lymphoma, non-Hodgkin's lymphoma and certain leukemias, which were often found in Vietnam veterans exposed to Agent Orange. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has stated that the chemical could have "endocrine disruption potential" and interfere with the human hormonal system. It may prove toxic to honeybees, birds and fish, according to research conducted by the US Forest Service and others. In 2004, a coalition of groups spearheaded by the Natural Resources Defense Council and the Pesticide Action Network, wrote a letter to the EPA taking it to task for underestimating the health and environmental impacts of 2,4-D.

Large-scale industrial farming has grown dependent on ever-increasing applications of agrochemicals. Some have compared this to a drug addict who requires larger and larger fixes to stay high. Herbicide use has increased steadily over time as weeds develop resistance and need to be doused with more and deadlier chemicals to kill them. This, in turn. requires more aggressive genetic engineering of crops that can withstand the escalating chemical assault.

Many agricultural scientists warn that this growing addiction to agrochemicals is unsustainable in the long run. The fertility of the soil decreases as earthworms and vital microorganisms are killed off by pesticides and herbicides. They also pollute the groundwater and compromise the health of farm animals that are fed with the chemical-infused grain.

These impacts are poised to grow. US Department of Agriculture (USDA) figures reveal that herbicide use rose by 383 million pounds from 1996 to 2008. Significantly, nearly half of this increase (46 percent) took place between 2007 and 2008 as a result of the hawking of new herbicide-resistant crops like the new corn hybrid developed by Dow.

Nobody knows what effect introducing this hybrid would have on the health of American consumers. Corn laced with high levels of 2,4-D could taint everything from breakfast cereals to the beef of cattle, which concentrate the toxin in their flesh. Given that corn and high-fructose corn syrup are key elements in so many processed foods, some public health experts warn that all Americans will soon be guinea pigs in an ill-conceived mass experiment with one of the staples of our food supply. America's agriculture department, the USDA is considering deregulating Monsanto's new genetically modified corn variety (the one which will be used in conjunction with the 2,4-D) and is accepting final public comments on the matter until the 27th of this month.

Until recently, herbicide-resistant crops were popular with farmers who benefited from higher yields and nearly effortless management of weeds. But now that the weed problem is coming back with a vengeance, some are reconsidering the wisdom of this chemical-intensive mode of farming. Dow biotech corn costs nearly three times more than conventional seed. And the projected doubling of pesticide use in the years ahead will be expensive, as well as destructive to farmland and ecosystems.

There are viable alternatives to chemical-intensive farming, time-tested methods like crop rotation, use of cover crops, and other practices which allow farmers to compete naturally with weeds. The time has come for farmers to revive the knowledge of their ancestors in this regard.

Some agricultural scientists advocate developing a system of integrated weed management to replace the unsustainable use of chemicals. But the big agrochemical companies have no interest in supporting the sustainable agriculture that would put them out of business. So long as there are billions of dollars to be made in selling herbicide and herbicide-resistant genetically modified seed, there won't be much research money available to explore the natural alternatives to the destruction of our nation's heartland.

Wednesday, 12 October 2011

Cereal Crimes

"Natural" claims in the cereal and granola aisle mislead consumers. A new research study from The Cornucopia Institute indicates the "natural" claim is mostly meaningless marketing hype, in contrast to the USDA certified organic label which signifies the food was produced without genetically modified organisms (GMOs), toxic pesticides and other potentially dangerous synthetic inputs. Cornucopia and USDA research finds GMOs, and toxic pesticide residues, in "natural" cereal ingredients... and many "natural" brands are often priced higher than equivalent organic products.



For more information: http://www.cornucopia.org/2011/10/natural-vs-organic-cereal/

Tuesday, 30 August 2011

Food Inc.


Know where your food is coming from and vote for change through your food choices and with your wallet!



Wednesday, 22 June 2011

The problem with Roundup Ready food

By Joel McNair, Belleville, Wisconsin

For a few years now — basically since his retirement from Purdue University — plant pathologist Don Huber has been telling people that there are serious problems with glyphosate (Roundup).

To date most of the discussion has taken place within the world of soybeans. Based on two decades of his own research along with the findings of other scientists, Huber is certain that glyphosate is reducing the ability of the soybean plant to take up and utilize manganese, thus reducing yields. It is a charge roundly denied by Monsanto and many mainstream agronomists.

But there is much, much more to Huber’s story, including potential animal and human health implications that deserve further investigation, especially as the United States confronts the very real potential for health care Armageddon. USDA’s late-January approval of Monsanto’s glyphosate-resistant (Roundup Ready) alfalfa — and the potential the genetics has to increase both glyphosate use and GMO contamination — makes this a good time to review what Huber is saying, and why the potential implications are so great. The information provided comes from Huber’s article, co-authored with fellow Purdue plant pathologist G.S. Johal, published in the October 2009 issue of the European Journal of Agronomy, plus his presentation at the recent GrassWorks Wisconsin Grazing Conference.

Glyphosate chelates (immobilizes) a tremendous number of soil minerals, reducing plant uptakes of some micronutrients by as much as 80%, Huber says. Calcium, cobalt, copper, iron, manganese, magnesium, nickel, zinc — all are bound up by glyphosate. While it is rapidly immobilized in the soil because it binds with those nutrients, glyphosate can remain in plants and soils for a very long time — up to 22 years in clay soils, Huber contends.

“It’s not just put it on the soil and ‘poof!’, it’s gone. It’s there for a very long time,” Huber told the Wisconsin grazing audience.

Glyphosate is also a potent microbiocide (disinfectant) that kills soils organisms important to converting certain minerals to forms usable by the plant, and in controlling soil-borne diseases that limit nutrient uptakes. While weed scientists have long said this is not a problem due to the its rapid immobilization, Huber contends that phosphorus applications and substances exuded by plant roots can free this locked-up glyphosate to damage plants long after its application. He says glyphosate leads to a nearly tenfold reduction in the soil organisms that make manganese available to plants, while increasing the organisms that make it less available by a factor of at least ten.

At the same time, Huber says there is evidence that the weed killer is producing “super pathogens” — mainly soil fungi such as Fusarium, Pythium and Phytophthora — that are causing problems in a variety of agricultural crops.

Bad as all of that may be, what glyphosate and the Roundup Ready gene does in and to the plant is even worse. Huber says glyphosate inhibits nitrogen fixation in legumes, damages roots, and reduces the ability of plants to utilize the reduced number of nutrients that the nodules and root tips are able to take in to the plant. Lignin production is reduced, thus making the plant more susceptible to disease. Photosynthesis is compromised, as is drought tolerance due to inefficient utilization of water, Huber asserts. He says the Roundup Ready gene itself is no bargain either, leading to drought stress, reduced N fixation and compromised nutrient uptake.

And the plants appear to have fewer nutrients. For example, at the Wisconsin conference Huber presented trial results showing nutrient declines in Roundup Ready alfalfa that had been treated with glyphosate the previous year. Compared to average levels, the declines for GMO alfalfa were: nitrogen 13%; phosphorus 15%; potassium 46%; calcium 17%; magnesium 26%; sulfur 52%; boron 18%; copper 20%; iron 49%; manganese 31% and zinc 18%. Gaze in wonder upon what USDA has just anointed.

This obviously worries Huber. “When you take one micronutrient out, there’s a domino effect. It makes all of them less efficient,” he told the Wisconsin grazing conference audience.
Calcium is important to bone formation, and iron is needed in blood. Manganese and zinc are required for proper liver and kidney function, while the brain needs copper and magnesium. Are the current epidemics of dementia and obesity being fueled at least partly by mineral imbalances in the food we eat and the water we drink?

And here is the very scariest part. In a letter to U.S. Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack prior to USDA’s RR alfalfa decision, Huber said that a team of scientists has discovered a tiny pathogen in RR soybeans and corn “that appears to significantly impact the health of plants, animals, and probably human beings.” He said that for an infectious agent to promote disease in both animals and plants “is very rare” and, while the work is preliminary, “I believe the threat we are facing from this pathogen is unique and of a high risk status. In layman’s terms, it should be treated as an emergency.” He said the pathogen may explain increasing rates of animal infertility and spontaneous abortions.

Vilsack, of course, ignored the warning. Most of what Huber says is disputed in the mainstream agricultural world, which is largely prohibited from doing the properly controlled experiments that might provide further verification to these charges. And of course, most of the research clout is on Monsanto’s side.

Yet there is enough evidence to merit concern. We graziers have known for at least two decades that it is very difficult to get grasses established in fields previously planted to row crops and sprayed with Roundup. None of us actually believed the stuff just went away, especially after many years of heavy use. For more than a decade we have had anecdotal evidence from farmers that their livestock don’t seem to perform as well on GMO grains. We now have studies indicating that modern foods are not as nutrient-dense as those of yore, and that organic foods grown without herbicides retain most of that density.

And we have evidence, both anecdotal and confirmed, that human health problems ranging from reduced sperm counts and diseases of the womb, to dementia and other diseases of late middle and old age, are on the rise in the United States. Is it the food? Is the problem at a broader environmental level in which food is just a part of what’s making us sick?

None of us has an certain answer to this, which is one reason why a few of the university people at Huber’s Wisconsin talk were at least somewhat dismissive. While it is widely understood that glyphosate locks up minerals in hard water, much of the rest of his message has not been proven to the mainstream. Any negative connotations for animal and, especially, human health are far beyond the realm of sound science, according to the scientists.

Still, one extension person who listened to Huber said it is entirely possible that he is on the mark. The history of innovation is rife with examples of the dark sides of a technology not being revealed until many years after its introduction. Whether it was emphysema from living in an Industrial Revolution factory town, or cancer from a toxic insecticide, we have almost always introduced first, and suffered the consequences later.

Someday, after the research is funded and the results published, we will have a better understanding of the consequences of GMOs. What’s particularly dangerous in regard to this particular technology is that we are changing organisms at the molecular level. How are we going to stuff this genie back into the bottle.

Coming back around to health care ... wouldn’t it be interesting if instead of treating symptoms (largely cost and availability), we started going after the root cause of the disease? Almost everyone with eyes and the ability to think knows that something is going on here that has yet to be fully explained. And anyone who is honest about the situation understands that we will not reach a viable health care solution until that something (or perhaps somethings) are discovered and addressed.

Of course there is no money in such, which brings us to what John Ikerd said at the Wisconsin conference. Ikerd, another retired land grant guy (University of Missouri agricultural economics), has for years been urging a move away from our current agricultural system with its focus on short-term profitability, and toward a “sustainable capitalism” that includes social and ecological goals in addition to dollar-and-cents economics.

Ikerd says our total focus on the bottom line in agriculture has created a “carefully oiled machine” that is incapable of functioning should some dirt get into the gears. “Take away government supports, and (the big operations) will collapse,” he warns.

Ikerd believes that change is afoot, and that efforts to address our looming health care disaster will be the impetus for that change. He says awareness of the potential impact of industrial food upon human health is growing exponentially, with the market for “something different” now three times bigger than the ability of farmers to supply it. Ikerd projects that within the foreseeable future, our health care problem will be directly tied to food quality, and that the industrial system will be replaced with something better and more sustainable.

I hope he’s right.

In addition to publishing Graze, Joel McNair grazes dairy heifers and sheep on a small farm in southern Wisconsin.

Contact - Graze • P.O. Box 48 • Belleville WI 53508 • 608-455-3311 • graze@grazeonline.com

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.

Sunday, 27 February 2011

King Corn

The disastrous US food supply starting with GMO corn. All those millions of acres of GMO corn planted is NOT food. It is basically a raw material for the food and meat industry. The US industrial agriculture is basically growing fast food. 

"We are growing crap! The poorest quality the world has ever seen! We don't eat the corn we grow. Not safe."
And it's all subsidized by the government because the farmers are actually making a loss by producing corn.
All in all, the US government is funding an industrial agriculture and food production that is making millions of Americans sick!

Oh, by the way, they started selling this cheap crap to the EU too.
Bon appetite! 



Official site.