Is Outrage Over the Monsanto Protection Act a Turning Point for the "Real Food" Movement?

www.huffingtonpost.com - June 13th, 2013

In March, when I first wrote about how the biotech rider -- called the Monsanto Protection Act by its vocal opponents -- undercut the constitutional concept of separation of powers, it seemed hardly anyone (other than the usual advocacy groups) was paying attention. But then a lot of people got mad, really mad.

Within a few short weeks the issue exploded in the mainstream media, with the surest sign the issue had hit the big time being (what else?) coverage by The Daily Show (hilariously titled, "You Stuck What Where?"). Another indication was outrage even from a Tea Party blogger.

Quick refresher: Biotech companies have to get permission from the U.S. Department of Agriculture to plant new genetically-engineered crops. In recent years, groups such as the Center for Food Safety have been gaining traction by filing lawsuits challenging federal approval, thereby stopping some novel crops from being planted when courts agreed that USDA failed to conduct proper environmental oversight.

Read More

The True Cost of Food

www.huffingtonpost.com - June 9th, 2013

It seems everywhere we turn there's more scary news about the fish on our plates.Genetically modified salmon appears headed for supermarket shelves, even as a recent study revealed the salmon could escape into the wild and cross-breed, posing a huge environmental risk for wild fish populations. Another investigation uncovered the dirty secrets of the Thai seafood industry, a major provider of shrimp to the U.S, and one of the worst culprits for human trafficking. That's just the tip of the iceberg. Ninety percent of all shrimp on American plates is imported from Asia, where it is grown on farms using high levels of antibiotics and chemicals that damage surrounding ecosystems, not to mention diners. And while salmon farming is being proclaimed as the way of the future, Monsanto too sees industrial aquaculture as a growing source of revenue for their genetically modified soy feed.

We can do better than this. There are healthy, sustainable fishing communities in our own backyard. So why, then, do we continue to support a seafood industry run on the backs of slaves? Why do we welcome factory-fed fish into our diets? Low food cost is the siren call. It was the promise of a lower cost, high profit protein source that makes Frankenfish seem like a good idea, and that never-ending shrimp buffet sure does taste good. When we turn a blind eye to where our food comes from in the name of convenience and price, we allow others to make our choices about what kind of food system we want to have. Ignorance may be bliss, but we can no longer afford to ignore the impact of our food choices.

Read More

Top 7 Genetically Modified Crops

www.huffingtonpost.com - April 26th, 2013

Check your pantry. Do you have any cereals, crackers, cookies, snack bars, soy milk or baby formula in there? How about anything with corn syrup or processed food made from corn on your shelves? If so, you are probably eating food containing genetically modified organisms (GMOs).

GMOs are plant or meat products that have had their DNA altered in a laboratory by genes from other plants, animals, viruses or bacteria.  For example, genetically modified corn contain a pesticide that cannot be washed off. Most GE food grown in the U.S. is "Roundup Ready," meaning it can withstand spraying of Monsanto's Roundup pesticide and live, while weeds around it die. (Well, that's how it works initially; now resistant "superweeds" have increased the amount of pesticides farmers must spray on their GE crops.)

Research links GMOs to allergies, organ toxicity, and other health issues, though the U.S. Food and Drug Administration does not require safety testing for GMOs.

Market watchers estimate that upwards of 70 percent of processed foods in your local supermarket contain genetically modified ingredients. However, there's no way to be sure of the percentage because no labels are required to inform consumers about the presence of GMOs in food.

The top three GMO crops grown in the U.S. are soy, corn and cotton, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). During the past 12 years, the percentage of acreage planted with GMO crops soared to over 80 percent for each of the top three.

Read More

GMO Poll Finds Huge Majority Say Foods Should Be Labeled

www.huffingtonpost.com - April 8th, 2013

Americans are largely uncertain over whether genetically modified foods are safe for the environment or safe to eat, but the vast majority say that foods containing genetically modified ingredients should be labeled, according to a new HuffPost/YouGov poll.

According to the new survey, 82 percent of Americans think GMO foods should be labeled, while only 9 percent say they should not be labeled. The vast majority of respondents across demographic groups favored labeling, with little division either by political party or by how much respondents had heard about the development of genetically modified crops.

Although respondents were near unanimous in saying genetically modified foods should be labeled, many expressed uncertainty about the environmental or health consequences of growing and consuming them.

Twenty-one percent of respondents said they think GMO foods are safe to eat, while 35 percent said they're dangerous to eat. But another 44 percent said they're not sure. Likewise, 39 percent of respondents said they're unsure of what impact growing GMO crops might have on the environment, although those who did have an opinion were more like to say such crops are bad for the environment. Overall, 35 percent said growing GMO crops is bad for the environment, 8 percent said it's good for the environment, and 18 percent said it would have no impact.

Read More

Supreme Court Seems on Monsanto's Side Over Seed Patent

www.usatoday.com - February 21st, 2013

WASHINGTON — Monsanto's patent for genetically modified soybeans appears safe in the Supreme Court's hands. And that's good news for innovations in biotechnology, computer software and other self-replicating products.

The biggest mystery arising from the justices' 70-minute consideration Tuesday of an Indiana farmer's challenge to Monsanto, in fact, was why they had agreed to hear the case at all, since two lower courts already had ruled for Monsanto.

In a classic case of David vs. Goliath, 75-year-old Vernon Hugh Bowman is challenging the agribusiness giant's patent on soybeans that are resistant to the weed killer Roundup. He bought his first batch of "Roundup Ready" seeds from Monsanto but then bought a cheaper mixture from a grain elevator that included some Monsanto seeds.

It's the third generation of seeds that's at issue in the case, because Bowman then began replanting his own herbicide-resistant seeds — and that violated Monsanto's patent, the company claims.

From Tuesday's oral arguments, it didn't seem Bowman had a vote in the room. "You cannot make copies of a patented invention," said Justice Stephen Breyer.

It's for that reason Monsanto has required farmers using its seeds to sign an agreement promising not to save and replant harvested seeds. But even if there was no license, the justices seemed to doubt Bowman's right to create new generations of identical seed under patent law.

Read More

Monsanto Keeps on Moving Toward a Lock on the World’s Food System

www.globalresearch.ca - February 18th, 2013

Arguments are scheduled to begin next week before the U.S. Supreme Court about whether an Indiana farmer is right when he claims that the seeds he planted should not be considered under the control of Monsanto, the giant transnational chemical and seed monopoly, through its patenting of the seeds.

Some are calling it a “David versus Goliath” contest but the farmer, Vernon H. Bowman, of southeastern Indiana, told The Guardian that he sees it as a question of right and wrong. In that, he is up against the power of Corporate America and the various parts of that power are arrayed against Bowman.

A lower court heard the case against Bowman v. Monsanto, one of the most powerful corporations (St. Louis, Mo.-based) in the most powerful nation in the world, and found in favor of Monsanto. The U.S. protects its corporations like it protects nothing else. It does not protect the individual in the same way and, in this case it is protecting the right of corporate hegemony over a single farmer.

Bowman, 75, who works the same land as his father, bought soybean seed from a local dealer, and the seed contained some of Monsanto’s patented “Roundup Ready” soybean seed, mixed in with other seeds. Monsanto maintains that such seeds can be used for feed, but cannot be used to plant a second crop, which is what Bowman was doing. Farmers who buy Monsanto’s patented seeds must sign an agreement that they will not save seed for planting in a subsequent year, but will buy new seeds every year from the company. They also pay a per-acre “royalty” for using the company’s seeds.

Monsanto typically enters a farmer’s land (some would call it trespassing) and takes samples (some would call it stealing), and then has the samples DNA-tested for their patented genes. If any appear, they sue the farmer and, since farmers are notoriously outgunned, legally and financially, they end up settling for an undisclosed amount with the company. The amount is undisclosed because, along with the settlement, there is a gag order and the farmer is coerced into agreeing not to discuss the case with anyone. Few farmers have enough money to take on the corporation.

Read More