A lengthy posting on GMO and what they do to we humans in our digestive tracks and our allergies. At some point you need to act on your health issues.

Eating This Could Turn Your Gut into a Living Pesticide Factory

Print
May 29 2012 | 90,161 views
  •  
  • 0
    Email to a friend Email

Story at-a-glance

  • Bt corn, which accounts for 65 percent of all corn grown in the US, has produced a new generation of insects resistant to the built-in pesticide in such plants. This failure could be the most serious threat ever to a genetically modified crop in the US, with billions of dollars at stake
  • We’re also seeing rapid emergence of super-weeds resistant to glyphosate, courtesy of Roundup Ready crops, and the emergence of a brand new organism capable of producing disease and infertility in both plants and animals
  • Bt-toxin has been identified in the blood of both pregnant and non-pregnant women, as well as the umbilical blood of their babies. Researchers believe this can be explained by its presence in the normal diet. Genetically engineered corn is present in the vast majority of all processed foods and drinks in the form of high fructose corn syrup, and you also ingest it when eating meat from animals fed Bt corn, which most livestock raised in confined animal feeding operations (CAFO, or so-called “factory farms”) are
  • Bt-crops may play a role in the rise in health problems such as gastrointestinal problems, autoimmune diseases, food allergies, and childhood learning disorders

By Dr. Mercola

A new generation of insect larvae is eating the roots of genetically engineered corn intended to be resistant to such pests.  The failure of Monsanto’s genetically modified Bt corn could be the most serious threat ever to a genetically modified crop in the U.S.

And the economic impact could be huge. Billions of dollars are at stake, as Bt corn accounts for 65 percent of all corn grown in the US.

The strain of corn, engineered to kill the larvae of beetles, such as the corn rootworm, contains a gene copied from an insect-killing bacterium called Bacillus thuringiensis, or Bt. 

But even though a scientific advisory panel warned the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) that the threat of insects developing resistance was high, Monsanto argued that the steps necessary to prevent such an occurrence — which would have entailed less of the corn being planted — were an unnecessary precaution, and the EPA naively agreed.

According to a recent NPR report:

“The scientists who called for caution now are saying ‘I told you so,’ because there are signs that a new strain of resistant rootworms is emerging…[A] committee of experts at the EPA is now recommending that biotech companies put into action, for the first time, a ‘remedial action plan’ aimed at stopping the spread of such resistant insects …

The EPA’s experts also are suggesting that the agency reconsider its approval of a new kind of rootworm-killing corn, which Monsanto calls SmartStax. This new version of Bt corn includes two different Bt genes that are supposed to kill the rootworm in different ways. This should help prevent resistance from emerging, and the EPA is allowing farmers to plant it on up to 95 percent of their corn acres. But if one of those genes is already compromised…  such a high percentage of Bt corn could rapidly produce insects that are resistant to the second one, too.”

There can be little doubt that genetically engineered crops are the most dangerous aspect of modern agriculture. Not only are we seeing rapid emergence of super-weeds resistant to glyphosate, courtesy of Roundup Ready crops, we now also have evidence of emerging Bt-resistant insects. Add to that the emergence of a brand new organism capable of producing disease and infertility in both plants and animals, and a wide variety of evidence showing harm to human health, and the only reasonable expectation one can glean is that humanity as a whole is being seriously threatened by this foolhardy technology.

Bt Corn—a Most Dangerous Failure

Monsanto’s genetically modified “Bt corn” has been equipped with a gene from soil bacteria called Bt (Bacillus thuringiensis), which produces the Bt-toxin. It’s a pesticide that breaks open the stomach of certain insects and kills them.

This pesticide-producing corn entered the food supply in the late 1990’s, and over the past decade, the horror stories have started piling up. And the problem with Bt crops go far beyond the creation of Bt-resistant insects.

Monsanto and the EPA swore that the genetically engineered corn would only harm insects. The Bt-toxin produced inside the plant would be completely destroyed in the human digestive system and would not have any impact at all on consumers, they claimed. Alas, they’ve been proven wrong on that account as well, because not only is Bt corn producing resistant “super-pests,” researchers have also found that the Bt-toxin can indeed wreak havoc on human health.

Bt-Toxin Now Found in Many People’s Blood!

Last year, doctors at Sherbrooke University Hospital in Quebec found Bt-toxin in the blood of:

  • 93 percent of pregnant women tested
  • 80 percent of umbilical blood in their babies, and
  • 67 percent of non-pregnant women

The study authors speculate that the Bt toxin was likely consumed in the normal diet of the Canadian middle class—which makes sense when you consider that genetically engineered corn is present in the vast majority of all processed foods and drinks in the form of high fructose corn syrup. They also suggest that the toxin may have come from eating meat from animals fed Bt corn, which most livestock raised in confined animal feeding operations (CAFO, or so-called “factory farms”) are.

These shocking results raise the frightening possibility that eating Bt corn might actually turn your intestinal flora into a sort of “living pesticide factory”… essentially manufacturing Bt-toxin from within your digestive system on a continuing basis.

If this hypothesis is correct, is it then also possible that the Bt-toxin might damage the integrity of your digestive tract in the same way it damages insects? Remember, the toxin actually ruptures the stomach of insects, causing them to die. The biotech industry has insisted that the Bt-toxin doesn’t bind or interact with the intestinal walls of mammals (which would include humans). But again, there are peer-reviewed published research showing that Bt-toxin does bind with mouse small intestines and with intestinal tissue from rhesus monkeys.

Bt-Toxin Linked to Allergies, Auto-Immune Disease, and More

If Bt genes are indeed capable of colonizing the bacteria living in the human digestive tract, scientists believe it could reasonably result in:

  • Gastrointestinal problems
  • Autoimmune diseases
  • Food allergies
  • Childhood learning disorders

And lo and behold, all of these health problems are indeed on the rise… The discovery of Bt-toxin in human blood is not proof positive of this link, but it certainly raises a warning flag. And there’s plenty of other evidence showing that the Bt-toxin produced in GM corn and cotton plants is toxic to humans and mammals and triggers immune system responses. For example, in government-sponsored research in Italy , mice fed Monsanto’s Bt corn showed a wide range of immune responses, such as:

  • Elevated IgE and IgG antibodies, which are typically associated with allergies and infections
  • An increase in cytokines, which are associated with allergic and inflammatory responses. The specific cytokines (interleukins) that were found to be elevated are also higher in humans who suffer from a wide range of disorders, from arthritis and inflammatory bowel disease, to MS and cancer
  • Elevated T cells (gamma delta), which are increased in people with asthma, and in children with food allergies, juvenile arthritis, and connective tissue diseases.

Rats fed another of Monsanto’s Bt corn varieties called MON 863, also experienced an activation of their immune systems, showing higher numbers of basophils, lymphocytes, and white blood cells. These can indicate possible allergies, infections, toxins, and various disease states including cancer. There were also signs of liver- and kidney toxicity.

Topical versus Internal Toxins

Farmers have used Bt-toxin from soil bacteria as a natural pesticide for years, and biotech companies have therefore claimed  that Bt-toxin has a “history of safe use in agriculture.” But there’s a huge difference between spraying it on plants, where it biodegrades in sunlight and can be carefully washed off, and genetically altering the plant to produce it internally.

Bt crops have the Bt-toxin gene built-in, so the toxin cannot be washed off. You simply cannot avoid consuming it. Furthermore, the plant-produced version of the poison is thousands of times more concentrated than the spray.

There are also peer-reviewed studies showing that natural Bt-toxin from soil bacteria is not a safe pesticide either:

Do You Know what You’re Eating?

Did you know that two years ago, the American Academy of Environmental Medicine (AAEM) called on all physicians to prescribe diets without genetically modified (GM) foods to all patients?

They sure did, although few doctors seem to have gotten the memo. They also called for a moratorium on genetically modified organisms (GMOs), long-term independent studies, and labeling, stating:

“Several animal studies indicate serious health risks associated with GM food, including infertility, immune problems, accelerated aging, insulin regulation, and changes in major organs and the gastrointestinal system.  …There is more than a casual association between GM foods and adverse health effects. There is causation…”

I couldn’t agree more. Avoiding genetically engineered foods should be at the top of everyone’s list—at least if you want a decent shot at optimal health.

The simplest way to avoid genetically engineered (GE) foods is to buy whole, certified organic foods. By definition, foods that are certified organic must never intentionally use GE ingredients, and must be produced without artificial pesticides or fertilizers. Animals must also be reared without the routine use of antibiotics, growth promoters or other drugs. Additionally, grass-fed beef will not have been fed GE corn feed.

You can also avoid genetically modified (GM) ingredients in processed foods, if you know what to look for. There are currently eight genetically modified food crops on the market:

 

Soy Sugar from sugar beets
Corn Hawaiian papaya
Cottonseed (used in vegetable cooking oils) Some varieties of zucchini
Canola (canola oil) Crookneck squash

This means you should avoid products with corn, soy, canola, and any of their derivatives listed as an ingredient, unless it’s labeled USDA 100% Organic. As of late last year, this also includes sweet corn, as Monsanto introduced a brand new genetically engineered sweet corn called Seminis®, which contains not just one but TWO types of Bt-toxin, PLUS the Roundup Ready gene for weed control! So besides containing the insecticide, their toxic Roundup herbicide will also accumulate in the kernels.

For a helpful, straightforward guide to shopping Non-GMO, see the Non-GMO Shopping Guide, created by the Institute for Responsible Technology.

Why We MUST Insist on Mandatory Labeling of GM Foods

Mandatory labeling may be the only way to stop the proliferation of GM foods in the U.S. because while GM seeds are banned in several European countries, in the U.S., certain states are actually passing legislation that protects the use of GM seeds and allows for unabated expansion! At present, no less than 14 states have passed such legislation. Michigan’s Senate Bill 777i, if passed, would make that 15. The Michigan bill would prevent anti-GMO laws, and would remove “any authority local governments may have to adopt and enforce ordinances that prohibit or regulate the labeling, sale, storage, transportation, distribution, use, or planting of agricultural, vegetable, flower or forest tree seeds.”

While legislation like this sounds like crazy nonsense to normal people, such bills are essentially bought and paid for through the millions of dollars Monsanto and other biotech companies spend lobbying the US government each year. In the first quarter of 2011 alone, Monsanto spent $1.4 million on lobbying the federal government — a drop from a year earlier, when they spent $2.5 million during the same quarter.

Their efforts of persuasion are also made infinitely easier by the fact that an ever growing list of former Monsanto employees are now in positions of power within the federal government.

Proof Positive that GMO Labeling WILL Change the Food Industry

Many don’t fully appreciate the strategy of seeking to have genetically engineered foods labeled in California. The belief is that large companies would refuse to have dual labeling; one for California and another for the rest of the country. It would be very expensive and a logistical nightmare. So rather than have two labels, they would simply not carry the product, especially if the new label would be the equivalent of a skull and crossbones. This is why we are so committed to this initiative as victory here will likely eliminate genetically engineered foods from the US.

Powerful confirmation of this belief occurred in early 2012 when both Coca-Cola Company and PepsiCo Inc. chose to alter one of their soda ingredients as a result of California’s labeling requirements for carcinogensii:

“Coca-Cola Co. and PepsiCo Inc. are changing the way they make the caramel coloring used in their sodas as a result of a California law that mandates drinks containing a certain level of carcinogens bear a cancer warning label. The companies said the changes will be expanded nationally to streamline their manufacturing processes. They’ve already been made for drinks sold in California.”

This is a PERFECT example of the national impact a California GMO labeling mandate can, and no doubt WILL, have. While California is the only state requiring the label to state that the product contains the offending ingredient, these companies are switching their formula for the entire US market, rather than have two different labels. According to USA Today:

“A representative for Coca-Cola, Diana Garza Ciarlante, said the company directed its caramel suppliers to modify their manufacturing processes to reduce the levels of the chemical 4-methylimidazole, which can be formed during the cooking process and as a result may be found in trace amounts in many foods. “While we believe that there is no public health risk that justifies any such change, we did ask our caramel suppliers to take this step so that our products would not be subject to the requirement of a scientifically unfounded warning,” Garza-Giarlante said in an email.”

Educational Sources

To learn more about GM foods, I highly recommend the following films and lectures:

Important Action Item: Support California’s Ballot Initiative to Label GMO’s!

In 2007, then-Presidential candidate Obama promised to “immediately” require GM labeling if elected. So far, nothing of the sort has transpired.

Fortunately, 24 U.S. states have (as part of their state governance) something called the Initiative Process, where residents can bring to ballot any law they want enacted, as long as it has sufficient support. California has been busy organizing just such a ballot initiative to get mandatory labeling for genetically engineered foods sold in their state. The proposed law will be on the 2012 ballot.

Since California is the 8th largest economy in the world, a win for the California Initiative would be a huge step forward, and would affect ingredients and labeling nation-wide. A coalition of consumer, public health and environmental organizations, food companies, and individuals has submitted the California Right to Know Genetically Engineered Food Act to the State Attorney General. Now, they need 800,000 signatures to get the Act on this year’s ballot.

I urge you to get involved and help in any way you can. Be assured that what happens in California will affect the remainder of the U.S. states, so please support this important state initiative, even if you do not live there!

  • Whether you live in California or not, please donate money to this historic effort
  • Talk to organic producers and stores and ask them to actively support the California Ballot. It may be the only chance we have to label genetically engineered foods.
  • Distribute WIDELY the Non-GMO Shopping Guide to help you identify and avoid foods with GMOs. Look for products (including organic products) that feature the Non-GMO Project Verified Seal to be sure that at-risk ingredients have been tested for GMO content. You can also download the free iPhone application that is available in the iTunes store. You can find it by searching for ShopNoGMO in the applications.
  • For timely updates, please join the Organic Consumers Association on Facebook, or follow them on Twitter.
  • Look for in-depth coverage of the issue at the Institute for Responsible Technology, subscribe to Spilling the Beans, and check out their Facebook or Twitter.

Do you want to know what is in the foods you eat? Read on my freind read on!!

Dear Organic Consumer,

  

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

For an Organic Future,


Ronnie Cummins
Director, Organic Consumers Association and Organic Consumers Fund

P.S. All money raised for this campaign will go through the Organic Consumers Fund, a 501(c)4 allied organization of the Organic ConsumersAssociation, focused on grassroots lobbying and legislative action. Donations are not tax-deductible.

Why we need to hold the line of Organic feed costs Fewer eggs set again.

 

Commercial hatcheries in the 19-state weekly program set 200 million eggs in incubators during the week ended May 12, down 3 percent from the eggs set the corresponding week a year earlier.

Average hatchability for chicks hatched during the week was 85 percent. 

Broiler growers in the 1 program placed 167 million chicks for meat production during the week ended May 12, down 4 percent from the comparable week a year earlier.

Cumulative placements through May 12 were 3.11 billion, down 4 percent from the same period a year earlier.

 

Why we do research at OPNS co-op

  Innovation is at the heart of competition in America ,we sell to the world. The lack of  innovative actions will leave a successful business crippled while another company steals their market share. Just ask Blockbuster who, in 2000, could have bought the online video streaming service Netflix for a mere 50 million. Blockbuster did what they always did,now the corporate  heads are watching the streaming service , NEtflix is putting Blockbuster out of business

Innovation is consistently thinking about how to do things differently and knowing that what works today might not work tomorrow. Thinking ahead, 3,5, and 10 years down the line and positioning yourself for future success. It is just as important to stay in touch with today’s consumer, as it is tomorrow’s consumer. Innovators listen to their consumers, that is why we do research on grains traits and productivity. The new red chips taste tested this week will sweep the market in years to come we believe.
OPINS Co-op , we strive to find new ways to not only serve our consumers but to interact with them . We know that a successful tomorrow is predicated on the work ethic, drive, and determination of today. It is our top priority to build personal relationships with our customers and help meet not just today’s needs, but tomorrows needs.

Bee’s one Monsanto zero Some common sense inPoland When will this come here to USA??

Beekeepers Win Ban on Monsanto’s GMOs in Poland

Monsanto’s Mon810 corn, genetically engineered to produce a mutant version of the insecticide Bt, has been banned in Poland following protests by beekeepers who showed the corn was killing honeybees.

Poland is the first country to formally acknowledge the link between Monsanto’s genetically engineered corn and the Colony Collapse Disorder (CCD) that’s been devastating bees around the world. Many analysts believe that Monsanto has known the danger their GMOs posed to bees all along. The biotech giant recently purchased a CCD research firm, Beeologics, that government agencies, including the US Department of Agriculture, have been relying on for help unraveling the mystery behind the disappearance of the bees.

Now that it’s owned by Monsanto, it’s very unlikely that Beeologics will investigate the links, but genetically engineered crops have been implicated in CCD for years now.

Food , food distribution issues.

Nice review of some important ideas

 

Do we really need to produce more to feed the growing population – or do we just need to stop wasting so much of what we already produce?

WE FEED THE WORLD is a film by Austrian filmmaker Erwin Wagenhofer about food and globalisation, fishermen and farmers, long-distance lorry drivers and high-powered corporate executives, the flow of goods and cash flow–a film about scarcity amid plenty.

Fuel from poop how to article

Does this make sense on farms, you betcha !!

 

 

Thursday, 03 May 2012 15:06 Written by wpnews

By Tom Kelly, West Point News Publisher  /  A local company is expanding its ability to deliver Internet, phone, and TV service in West Point.
Skywave Wireless, Inc. is installing fiber optic lines in parts of the community and is now serving the John A. Stahl Library. Skywave is preparing to hook up other businesses in the downtown area within a few months and will continue to extend its infrastructure, eventually making the service available throughout the city.

Partners Craig Schmaderer and Ryan Kuester say their goal is “to provide a faster, more reliable service for less than people are paying now.” The terminology for their product is Fiber to the Premises, or FTTP.
“Fiber optics are engineered to use light to transmit data,” Kuester said. “You don’t have problems with interference like you can have with copper cables, and we have the capability to offer unlimited (Internet) speeds.”
Schmaderer said Skywave is nearing completion of the first phase of the project.
“We wanted to cover as many businesses as we can this year,” he said.
They said the agreement with the library was the key to getting the service rolling. A grant to the library through the federal government stimulus program was helpful.
“We were considering doing it for them, but it would have required a huge installation fee that would have been too much for the library without the stimulus,” Schmaderer said. “The library participation helped jump start everything. The project never would have happened on this scale without it.”
“Another big thing was that the city was very open to it,” he added. “They gave us franchise status, and that gave us the utility right-of-ways we needed.”
Skywave has been able to capitalize on the availability this spring of Bauer Underground of Norfolk,, the fiber optic cable contractor.

To the greedy producers demanding $15 corn prices and $30 beans your killing the golden chicken egg

This trend of less egg sets means fewer places to sell grains due to higher prices..

By Rita Jane Gabbett on 5/10/2012

Commercial hatcheries in the 19 state weekly program set 199 million eggs in incubators during the week ending May 5, down 4 percent from the eggs set the corresponding week a year earlier.

Average hatchability for chicks hatched during the week was 84 percent. Average hatchability is calculated by dividing chicks hatched during the week by eggs set three weeks earlier.

Broiler growers in the program placed 166 million chicks for meat production during the week ending May 5. Placements were down 4 percent from the comparable week a year earlier.

Cumulative placements from Jan. 1 through May 5 were 2.94 billion, down 4 percent from the same period a year earlier.

Some facts to consider as you ponder labels for foods you eat being required

Tuesday, May 08, 2012 1:16 PM
by Sam Ross-Brown
Corn on the Cob

Just over half of Americans say they wouldn’t buy a food they knew was genetically modified. Another 87 percent say they want to see GM labels at the grocery store. That’s one reason why Connecticut’s recent failure to require labeling is so surprising, says Treehugger. Now, genetically-modified food is controversial among consumers, farmers, and scientists, and it’s difficult to find a consensus on GM benefits and risks. The World Health Organization, for instance, while noting some potential human health hazards like gene transfer, maintains GM safety is a case-by-case issue.   

But the biggest opposition in Connecticut didn’t come from scientists. The reason the bill failed appears to be pressure from Monsanto, which reportedly threatened state legislators with legal action. This was the same tactic that got a GM labeling provision thrown out in Vermont last month, as the one thing cash-strapped states don’t need is a big lawsuit.

Back in 2007, then-candidate Obama said he supported labeling requirements for GM foods. But after years of silence and a high-profile national campaign last fall to get action from Washington (and another one earlier this year), many states have taken matters into their own hands. Mostly, it’s been slow going. In Minnesota, a bill requiring labels failed in March. Legislators voted down a similar bill in Washington state recently, reportedly after facing pressure from, you guessed it, Monsanto and other biotech firms.

But in California, voters have the ability to bypass their legislature in statewide ballot initiatives. Last week, they filed almost a million signatures to do just that, and this November, a GM labeling requirement will be on the ballot. The campaign took a swift ten weeks, says MarketWatch, and culminated in rallies across the state. Given that a clear majority of Californians support the initiative, it seems likely to pass.

What happens in the rest of the country is less certain. Even as state activists and legislators debate GM safety and labeling, the Department of Agriculture is set to approve a new GM corn crop which poses potential health hazards to farmers and consumers. The crop is resistant to a herbicide called 2,4-D, a chemical now used on golf courses to kill large weeds, reports Huffington. 2,4-D, an active ingredient in Agent Orange, has been linked to health problems like cancer and birth defects, but now may coat millions of acres of modified corn. GM safety may be a case-by-case question, but many scientists are concerned about this one.

And for the USDA, and Obama, all this is nothing new. According to the San Francisco Chronicle, the department hasn’t denied approval for a GM crop since they began appearing in the mid-1990s. Last year, after Ag Secretary Tom Vilsack got cold feet about a White House plan to allow unrestricted GM alfalfa, he fell back in line almost immediately. The reason, says Tom Philpott in Grist, was almost certainly political pressure from an administration with strong ties to agribusiness and biotech.

Even if states like California can enforce labeling requirements, changing how we grow food to reflect people’s concerns about GM is much more difficult. What all this means is that GM skeptics have an uphill battle, not just from big chemical companies or inactive state legislatures, but also from the federal government.  

Read more: http://www.utne.com/blogs/blog.aspx?blogid=26&tag=Sam Ross-Brown#ixzz1uKP65zxs

Oh No cought red handed No problem, make the farmers pay the fees to EPA

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 7
901 N. Fifth St., Kansas City, KS 66101
 
Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, Nebraska, and Nine Tribal Nations
 
Syngenta Crop Protection to Pay $102,000 Penalty for Sale or Distribution of Misbranded Pesticides in Nebraska and Missouri
 
Contact Information: Chris Whitley, 913-551-7433, whitley.christopher@epa.gov

Environmental News

 
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
 
(Kansas City, Kan., May 8, 2012) – Syngenta Crop Protection LLC, of Greensboro, N.C., has agreed to pay a $102,000 civil penalty to the United States to settle a series of environmental violations related to the sale or distribution of misbranded pesticides through its facility in Omaha, Neb., and through a farm supply retailer in Savannah, Mo.
 
According to an administrative consent agreement filed by EPA Region 7 in Kansas City, Kan., inspections of Syngenta’s Omaha facility and a business in Chesapeake, Va., in March and April 2011 found that between March 4 and April 5, 2011, Syngenta had received 16 imported shipments of Azoxystrobin Technical, a fungicide, whose bags were not labeled with an accepted EPA label.
 
During a separate inspection in August 2011 at Duncan Agri-Service, Inc., in Savannah, Mo., EPA found a bulk tank of Lumax Selective Herbicide, owned by Syngenta, whose label was missing a required warning statement about the required use of personal protective equipment by persons using the pesticide.
 
The labeling deficiencies related to the two pesticides were in violation of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), according to the settlement.
 
The sale or distribution of misbranded or mislabeled pesticides can pose serious risks to human health, plant and animal life, and the environment. Without proper labeling or safety instructions on packaging, users can unintentionally misapply pesticides and may not have adequate information to address needs for first aid in the event of emergency.
 
As a result of EPA’s enforcement action, Syngenta was required to relabel all of the shipments in question. The company has also instituted changes in its practices to prevent similar violations.