Sandra Finley

Jun 112013
 

http://www.hamilton.co.nz/our-council/news/Pages/Hamilton-to-end-fluoride-in-water.aspx

History was made at 10.15am on Wednesday 5th June 20133 when Hamilton City Council, NZ, voted 7-1 to remove Hydrofluosilicic Acid from our public water supply.

 

Hamilton to end fluoride in water

5 June 2013

Hamilton City Council has voted overwhelmingly to remove fluoride from the city’s water.

After four days of submissions a council tribunal today voted 7-1 to stop the practice of adding fluoride to the public water supply from no later than 21 June when stocks run out.  The tribunal was presented with research from experts and interested parties on both sides of the debate, although the majority were against fluoride.

Mayor Julie Hardaker tabled the motion to remove fluoride, seconded by Deputy Mayor Gordon Chesterman. Councillors on the tribunal to agree were Daphne Bell, Margaret Forsyth, Roger Hennebry, Dave Macpherson and Angela O’Leary.  Peter Bos was the only vote against.

Three councillors who are also on the Waikato District Health Board – Martin Gallagher, Pippa Mahood and Ewan Wilson – did not take part in the tribunal, along with John Gower and Maria Westphal  due to previously stated views on fluoride.

The Council will be writing to Health Minister Tony Ryall, expressing  its view that public water fluoridation is a health issue which central government should determine.

That point was stressed by Mayor Julie Hardaker today. “This is a matter for central government – not a local government job.

Ms Hardaker, who thanked submitters for their “respectful and considered” presentations, said the tribunal process gave the opportunity to see the two different views put forward by experts and community members to help make the decision.

She said there needed to be compelling reasons to change the status quo – Hamilton has been adding fluoride to its water since the 1960s.

Ms Hardaker said “potential and perceived risks’’ from fluoridation were raised at the tribunal, while there was no dispute that topical applications via toothpaste were effective against tooth decay.

She felt a telling statistic was that of the 220 litres of water a day used by the average Hamilton person, only  about 2 litres was consumed and the rest went to the wastewater system.

Deputy Mayor Gordon Chesterman said he was not satisfied fluoridation had achieved benefits “beyond reasonable doubt’’.

He urged the Government to crack down on sugar-laden drinks, which many tribunal submissions linked to dental decay, suggesting they be taxed like alcohol and tobacco.

He noted only 23 of 67 New Zealand councils still added fluoride as public opinion was changing. “Fluoride must go. Fluoride is not beyond reasonable doubt.”

Sugary drinks were a common target among councillors. “Sugar is  enemy No 1,” said Cr  Hennebry.  Cr Bell said she was going against her dentist’s advice in voting for “freedom of choice’’.

Cr Forsyth said she now had “sufficient doubt’’ about fluoride. Cr Macpherson said he was convinced fluoride was not safe, while Cr O’Leary strongly supported the motion and thought the tribunal had been a “really great process’’.

Cr  Bos, speaking against the motion, wanted a referendum on fluoride at the elections later this year.  “I think we are making a mistake. This should go to the people.”

Several councillors also mentioned the work of  Council staff in co-ordinating the 1557 submissions and running the tribunal.  “I want to thank everyone involved,” said Ms Hardaker. “This was an exercise in how democracy works.’’

The vote was greeted with applause from about 20 people in the public gallery.

The Council will make annual savings of $48,000 by removing fluoride. How that saving is used will be discussed at the Annual Plan deliberations tomorrow. An amendment by Cr Macpherson, seconded by Cr  Hennebry, to spend the $48,000 on increasing the Waikato District Health Board’s dental health education and intervention programme was lost in a 6-2 vote.

 

Fluoride fact sheet (PDF, 360KB)

HAMILTON CITY COUNCIL

Fluoridation Factsheet

INTRODUCTION

Council has considered on-going requests from the community on the practice of adding fluoride to the Hamilton water supply and made a decision to review fluoridation of the Hamilton Water Supply Policy.

Public consultation opened on 1 March and closed on 2 April 2013.

A total of 1557 submissions were received. The majority (1385) of submissions wanted Council to stop adding fluoride to the city water supply with 170 submissions supporting the continuation of fluoride. And two submission did do indicate a preference.

A tribunal-style hearing was held 28, 29, 30 May and 4 June 2013. This involved a co-ordinated presentation by both the opponents and supporters of water fluoridation to Council. In addition to these presentations, 141 individuals or representative organisations presented.

After four days of hearings, on 5 June 2013 Council voted 7-1 to stop the practice of adding fluoride to the public water supply from no later than 21 June when stocks run out.

SUBMISSIONS – HIGH LEVEL SUMMARY

The majority (1385) of submissions sought Council to stop adding fluoride to the city water supply with 170 submissions supporting the continuation of fluoride. 

A total of 984 submitters indicated they were Hamilton residents or ratepayers. A further 74 submitters indicated they were Hamilton water users (but not ratepayers or residents) 

The key reasons for submitters wanting Council to stop the fluoridation of the Hamilton water supply were around individuals having the right to choose what they ingest (994), the links between fluoride and a number of illnesses, risks and harm (807) and the perception that fluoride is considered ineffective (741). 

Of those wishing Council to continue to fluoridate the water supply (170), the key reasons were the perception that fluoridating the water supply is a cost-effective population-based strategy to prevent dental cavities (124), that there is scientific research to support fluoridation (45) and people citing their own experiences with the benefits (or problems due to the lack) of fluoride (46).

MANAGEMENT OF FLUORIDE IN THE WATER SUPPLY 

“Fluoride” is a general term used to refer to various chemical compounds of the element fluorine. Those chemicals can be naturally occurring, or man-made. 

Naturally occurring fluoride is found in air, soil, fresh water, sea water plants and many foods. Hamilton City Council uses the chemical hydrofluorosilicic acid (HFA) to fluoridate Hamilton’s water. 

Naturally occurring levels of fluoride in drinking water vary depending on the type of soil and rock that the water flows through. 

The Waikato River typically has a background fluoride level of approximately 0.2mg/L. 

Water fluoridation is the act of adding fluoride chemicals to city water supply. Fluoridation of treated water in Hamilton began in 1966 as a means of addressing oral health and dental decay issues using powdered sodium fluoride, and then changed to liquid hydrofluorosilicic acid (HFA) in 1985. 

The level of fluoride in drinking water recommended by the Ministry of Health is between 0.7-1.0mg/L. Hamilton’s target level of fluoride is between 0.70 mg/L and 0.80 mg/L. HFA is added to the treated water supply at a dose rate of approximately 0.5 – 0.6mg/L to achieve this level. 

The New Zealand Drinking Water Standards of New Zealand 2005 (revised 2008) specify a maximum acceptable level of 1.5mg/L of fluoride in treated water. Due to the therapeutic and maximum acceptable levels being relatively close, the water treatment station tightly controls and monitors the fluoride dosing system. 

Adding fluoride to the water supply costs approximately $48,000 per annum.

Jun 112013
 

Many thanks to Lucy Sharratt and CBAN:

 

GM Alfalfa Registered:

Email your MP instantly from http://www.cban.ca/alfalfaMPletter

Our government is siding with multinational companies against the best interests of farmers and our food system. I do not accept this. Do you?

Action Update on GM Alfalfa, June 11 2013:

The Canadian Biotechnology Action Network (CBAN) has uncovered that the Canadian Food Inspection Agency has recently approved one variety of genetically engineered alfalfa: a herbicide tolerant (Roundup Ready) alfalfa from Monsanto/Forage Genetics International. This means that one variety of GM alfalfa is now legal to sell in Canada. There could be more varieties approved over the summer (the process is completely secret).

 

However, GM alfalfa seeds are not yet on the market in Canada. Email your MP today: “Will you stand up to stop GM alfalfa from being released and contaminating our fields and food?” http://www.cban.ca/alfalfaMPletter

 

After the Day of Action to Stop GM Alfalfa on April 9 2013, the company Forage Genetics International stated that it would not put any GM alfalfa seeds on the market this spring. The company could, however, release GM alfalfa whenever it decides. CBAN is closely monitoring this situation.

The Minister of Agriculture, Gerry Ritz, chose not to intervene to stop the registration of this GM alfalfa. The Minister received almost 8000 email letters asking him to stop the release GM alfalfa and on April 9 people rallied in 38 communities across Canada. Most of these community actions took place outside local constituency offices of federal Members of Parliament and many petitions were delivered to MPs that they have now presented  in the House of Commons. Your outreach to your Members of Parliament has been very influential. As CBAN continues to implement various strategic work with you to stop the release of GM alfalfa, we ask you to continue your communication with your Member of Parliament. The Day of Action showed us that many MPs understand your concerns.

The recent discovery of contamination from unapproved GM wheat in the US clearly shows why stopping the introduction of GM crops like GM alfalfa is the only way to stop contamination.

 

The Canadian Biotechnology Action Network is committed to protecting family farms and our food system from GM contamination. Together, farmers, consumers and scientists in Canada stopped Monsanto’s Bovine Growth Hormone from being approved. We need to remember that this important victory took ten years of persistent campaigning. Last year, your actions with CBAN stopped the GM pig called “Enviropig”. In 2004, Monsanto withdrew its applications for approval of GM wheat in Canada and the US because of our protests. Through all these years, and many more victories, more people have become aware of this issue and more people have taken action. We are at a crossroads, and your action will help us turn in the right direction.

Please join us as we press forward. Thank you for your continued action and support.

Best regards, Lucy Sharratt, Coordinator

Lucy Sharratt, Coordinator
Canadian Biotechnology Action Network (CBAN)
Collaborative Campaigning for Food Sovereignty and Environmental Justice
Suite 206, 180 Metcalfe Street
Ottawa, Ontario, Canada, K2P 1P5
Phone: 613 241 2267 ext. 25
Fax: 613 241 2506
coordinator@cban.ca
www.cban.ca

Please donate today to support the campaigns! www.cban.ca/donate

Jun 112013
 

It is necessary to know how the industry / government / university alliance works, if we are to take back our food supply.   Please see:

 

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

“THE SCRAMBLE” HAS BEEN IN THE MAKING, AND IT’S NOT JUST IN AFRICA  –  EXCERPTS FROM FOUR EARLIER POSTINGS

In looking at the corporate takeover of agricultural land, the first three items below name different Industry front groups.  Why?  . . .  because the front groups are the VEHICLE for the takeover.

I include the fourth posting, not because it adds to the documentation of the takeover, but because it draws the front groups into one updated discussion.

It is necessary to know how the industry / government / university alliance works, if we are to take back our food supply.

 – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

Among the listed sponsors of the seed vault are: Monsanto; . . . world  agribusiness giants Dupont/Pioneer Hi-Bred and Syngenta, both promoting GMO seeds and all the chemicals needed for large scale monoculture farming . . .

Engdahl points out that the so called “Green  Revolution” was a steady networking grab, allowing the monopoly Rockefellers to  eventually gain control over much of international agribusiness while ruining small third world farms and forcing those farmers into cheap labor  pools.

 – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

Corporate ownership of farmland   

The information is about Canada (Agcapita). 

CBC Radio, The Current, did an interview some months ago  – –   a large pool of money (an American hedge fund managed by a Canadian woman) and the country was Africa.  It was pretty insidious how they propagandized African farmers about how much better off they would be if they sold their land but continued to farm it. 

It seemed obvious to me that the new “owners” will be dictating what crops and how they are raised (bioteched and chemicalled).  It’s industrialized farming and the number of “employees” won’t be many, not with the big machines they will bring in.  I hope there are lots of people to spread the word – the new owners won’t care whether or not local people are employed and can continue to feed themselves. 

Oh Lord!  what problems are created when there are large amounts of money in one place!   Coupled with absentee ownership – – give your money to someone to invest and all you care about is “return on investment”.  

We are all paying the food and environmental costs associated with this type of unsustainable, impoverishing agriculture.

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

(5)     THANKS TO WIKILEAKS:  U.S. EMBASSY RECOMMENDS A LIST OF COUNTRIES FOR ‘RETALIATION’ OVER THEIR OPPOSITION TO GENETIC MODIFICATION 

This latest cable further confirms that globally promoting genetically modified foods is a high priority for the US State Department.  As discussed in a prior piece, numerous leaked cables reveal a strong focus by embassy officials on cataloging how nations perceive GMOs, boosting GM acceptance in Africa, and even going so far as to discuss spiking food prices to spur GM acceptance in Europe. The latest cable is no different: 

“Post will continue to lobby the Vatican to speak up in favor of GMOs, in the hope that a louder voice in Rome will encourage individual Church leaders elsewhere to reconsider their critical views.” 

Strong opposition within the church cites the monopoly control over food held by multinational corporations: 

“The Vatican cannot force all bishops to endorse biotechnology, he said, particularly if their opposition has to do with concerns over protecting profits of large corporations who hold the patents for the crops, versus feeding the hungry. In the Philippines, he noted, bishops strongly protested GMOs in the past. (Note: South African Cardinal Wilfrid Fox Napier’s November 16 comments to a news agency that ‘Africans do not need GMOs, but water’ is another example of specific Church leaders skeptical about the potential benefits of new biotechnologies.).” 

Corporate control of the food supply is only one problem with biotech foods, albeit a major one.  After fourteen years of commercial experience, the U.S. is fast becoming the poster child for why nations, and the Church, should reject such technology.

 – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

. . .   More than 50 front groups, working on behalf of food and biotechnology trade groups―Monsanto being the most prominent―have formed a new coalition called Alliance to Feed the Future.   . . .  this alliance and many other industry-sponsored front groups masquerading as non-profits and consumer protection organizations are becoming increasingly exposed for what they really are …  how the food and agricultural industry hide behind friendly-sounding organizations aimed at fooling the public, policymakers and media alike.

Jun 112013
 

By George Monbiot, published in the Guardian 11th June 2013

Corporate Carve-Up 

One of the stated purposes of the Conference of Berlin in 1884 was to save the people of Africa from the slave trade. To discharge this grave responsibility, the European powers discovered, to their undoubted distress, that they would have to extend their control and ownership of large parts of Africa.

In doing so, they accidentally encountered the vast riches of that continent, which had not in any way figured in their calculations, and found themselves in astonished possession of land, gold, diamonds and ivory. They also discovered that they were able to enlist the labour of a large number of Africans, who, for humanitarian reasons, were best treated as slaves.

One of the stated purposes of the G8 conference, hosted by David Cameron next week, is to save the people of Africa from starvation. To discharge this grave responsibility, the global powers have discovered, to their undoubted distress, that their corporations must extend their control and ownership of large parts of Africa. As a result, they will find themselves in astonished possession of Africa’s land, seed and markets.

David Cameron’s purpose at the G8, as he put it last month, is to advance “the good of people around the world”(1). Or, as Rudyard Kipling expressed it during the previous scramble for Africa, “To seek another’s profit, / And work another’s gain … / Fill full the mouth of Famine / And bid the sickness cease”(2). Who could doubt that the best means of doing this is to cajole African countries into a new set of agreements, which allow foreign companies to grab their land, patent their seeds and monopolise their food markets?

The New Alliance for Food Security and Nutrition, which bears only a passing relationship to the agreements arising from the Conference of Berlin, will, according to the US agency promoting it, “lift 50 million people out of poverty over the next 10 years through inclusive and sustained agricultural growth.”(3) This “inclusive and sustained agricultural growth” will no longer be in the hands of the people who are meant to be lifted out of poverty. How you can have one without the other is a mystery that has yet to be decoded. But I’m sure the alliance’s corporate partners – Monsanto, Cargill, Dupont, Syngenta, Nestlé, Unilever, Itochu, Yara International and others – could produce some interesting explanations(4).

The New Alliance offers African countries public and private money (the UK has pledged £395m of foreign aid(5)) if they strike agreements with G8 countries and the private sector (which means, in many cases, multinational companies). Six countries have signed up so far.

That African farming needs investment and support is indisputable. But does it need land grabbing? Yes, according to the deals these countries have signed. Mozambique, where local farmers have already been evicted from large tracts of land, is now obliged to write new laws promoting what its agreement calls “partnerships” of this kind(6). Cote d’Ivoire must “facilitate access to land for smallholder farmers and private enterprises”(7). Which, in practice, means evicting smallholder farmers for the benefit of private enterprises. Already French, Algerian, Swiss and Singaporean companies have lined up deals across 600,000 hectares or more of this country’s prime arable land. These deals, according to the development group GRAIN, “will displace tens of thousands of peasant rice farmers and destroy the livelihoods of thousands of small traders.”(8) Ethiopia, where land grabbing has been accompanied by appalling human rights abuses, must assist “agriculture investors (domestic and foreign; small, medium and larger enterprises) to … secure access to land”(9).

And how about seed grabbing? Yes, that too is essential to the well-being of Africa’s people. Mozambique is now obliged to “systematically cease distribution of free and unimproved seeds”, while drawing up new laws granting intellectual property rights in seeds which will “promote private sector investment”(10). Similar regulations must also be approved in Ghana, Tanzania and Cote d’Ivoire.

The countries which have joined the New Alliance will have to remove any market barriers which favour their own farmers. Where farmers comprise between 50 and 90% of the population(11), and where their livelihoods are dependent on the non-cash economy, these policies – which make perfect sense in the air-conditioned lecture rooms of the Chicago Business School – can be lethal.

Strangely missing from the New Alliance agreements is any commitment on the part of the G8 nations to change their own domestic policies. These could have included farm subsidies in Europe and the US, which undermine the markets for African produce, or biofuel quotas, which promote world hunger by turning food into fuel. Any constraints on the behaviour of corporate investors in Africa (such as the Committee on World Food Security’s guidelines on land tenure(12)) remain voluntary, while the constraints on their host nations become compulsory. As in 1884, the powerful nations make the rules and the weak ones abide by them. For their own good, of course.

The West, as usual, is able to find leaders in Africa who have more in common with the global elite than they do with their own people. In some of the countries which have joined the New Alliance, there were wide-ranging consultations on land and farming, whose results have been now ignored in the agreements with the G8. The deals between African governments and private companies were facilitated by the World Economic Forum, and took place behind closed doors(13).

But that’s what you have to do when you’re dealing with “new-caught, sullen peoples, / Half-devil and half-child”(14), who perversely try to hang on to their own land, their own seeds and their own markets. Even though David Cameron, Barack Obama and the other G8 leaders know it isn’t good for them.

 

www.monbiot.com
References:
1. https://www.gov.uk/government/news/the-uks-g8-agenda-increasing-trade-fairer-taxes-and-greater-transparency
2. Rudyard Kipling, 1899. The White Man’s Burden.
3. http://www.usaid.gov/unga/new-alliance
4. You can see which corporations have made agreements with particular countries by reading the Cooperation Framework documents accessible here: http://www.feedthefuture.gov/article/food-security-and-g8-summit
5.  (Link no longer valid   http://www.waronwant.org/overseas-work/food-sovereignty/g8/17893-stop-uks-multimillion-giveaway-to-multinationals)
6. http://feedthefuture.gov/sites/default/files/resource/files/Mozambique%20Coop%20Framework%20ENG%20FINAL%20w.cover%20REVISED.pdf
7. http://feedthefuture.gov/sites/default/files/resource/files/Ivory%20Coast%20Coop%20Framework%20ENG_Final%20w.%20cover.pdf
8. GRAIN, 11th March 2013. The G8 and Land Grabs in Africa.  http://www.grain.org/article/entries/4663-the-g8-and-land-grabs-in-africa
9. http://feedthefuture.gov/sites/default/files/resource/files/Ethiopia_web.pdf
10. http://feedthefuture.gov/sites/default/files/resource/files/Mozambique%20Coop%20Framework%20ENG%20FINAL%20w.cover%20REVISED.pdf
11. World Bank, “World Databank”, http://databank.worldbank.org/data/home.aspx, cited by African Centre for Biosafety and others, 15th May 2013. STATEMENT BY CIVIL SOCIETY IN AFRICA. http://www.acbio.org.za/activist/index.php?m=u&f=dsp&petitionID=3
12. Food and Agriculture Organization, 2012. Voluntary Guidelines on the responsible governance of tenure of land, fisheries and forests in the context of national food security. http://www.fao.org/docrep/016/i2801e/i2801e.pdf
13. Through its Grow Africa Partnership.
14. Rudyard Kipling, as above.

Jun 102013
 

(1)     This CBC footage explains the Keeling curve and puts it in context.

(Starts with two short ads.  A small portion has voice but no picture. But it corrects; the clarity of information is worth the minor annoyances.):

8:23
Duncan McCue visits an observatory that was set up 5 decades ago to measure carbon dioxide levels

 

(2)    Most of our communities have people who are working their butts off, to bring people together to find solutions. 

IMPORTANT IN SASKATOON AREA:

Please let people know:   Thursday, June 13, 2013 at 7:00 PM,  at the Theatre in the basement of the (downtown) Frances Morrison Library at 311-23rd Street East.

Global Warming:  Crisis, Solutions, Opportunities

Green Party 

—  Dianne Rhodes:    “Global Climate Reality and Living on the New Eaarth
—  Dr. Mark Bigland-Pritchard:  “Climate Chaos:  Canada’s Role in Keeping It Manageable
—  Prof. Patricia Farnese:  “No way, Freeway:  The Time Is Now to Take Action for a Sustainable Saskatoon
— Screening of Do the Math documentary

 

Invite your friends!

Facebook sign-up:  https://www.facebook.com/events/147612605422906/ and invite your friends.

Jun 092013
 

Jim writes: “Andrew Weaver the first Green MLA (MPP) in Canada being sworn in in the BC legislature on Thursday in Victoria!

Once sworn in, Andrew wasted no time in making his voice heard: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/british-columbia/andrew-weaver-first-green-mla-in-bc-history-sworn-in/article12390463/

 

Jun 092013
 

Power to  … who?!   Stand Up, Speak Out!   Marianne Williamson TedX Talk:   http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KHRE10ZiYjM  

 

RELATED (Williamson):

  1. 2013-05-27  What comes next?   March Against Monsanto.  Marianne Williamson speaks.

UPDATE:  I sent an email to Marianne to suggest that the role of the University needs to be addressed.

June 09, 2013:  Received a reply – see the above posting What comes next?

2.   2004-10-24  Our greatest fear is of our own power  (Poem by Marianne Williamson)

 

Jun 092013
 

PLEASE HELP – add your weight to the Petition.

April 29 – we celebrated European ability to get “neo nics” (pesticides that kill bees) banned in Europe.    (http://sandrafinley.ca/?p=8974)

Today, the ban is in serious jeopardy because of the manoeuvres of the chemical corporations.

If you have questions, see the links at the bottom.

If we as global citizens cannot make the ban on these 3 chemicals that kill bees REAL in Europe,  there will be little chance of getting these poisons stopped in Canada.

Killing off the pollinators is extremely bad and costly policy.

Thank-you for your consideration, and please forward to others.

/Sandra

NOTE:  I would not have chosen the wording “incredible scam”, but I suppose that’s what it is.

– – – – – – – – – – – – – –

Ladies and Gentlemen,

Right now in Brussels, an incredible scam is soon to take place that will harm bees, biodiversity… and all citizens who have been fighting for several years to ban bee killing pesticides in Europe and in every country in the world.

We must stop this action before it has dramatic consequences on the future of our farms and our food.   PLEASE SIGN THE ENCLOSED EUROPEAN PETITION NOW AND PASS IT AROUND AS MUCH AS YOU CAN.

There is not one minute to lose!

After several years of relentless fighting from citizens and beekeepers, the European Commission has finally taken an official stand against three neonicotinoid pesticides which are extremely dangerous for bees (1).

Since Associations believed they had won, they had laid down their arms.

BUT …

In reality, the arrangement soon to be adopted by Brussels authorities is a disastrous compromise dictated by international agrochemical companies such as Bayer, Syngenta and such, which have been harshly lobbying for months in order to obtain such a result (2).

Their objective : to thwart the will of the european citizens and prevent a REAL ban on beekilling pesticides – against the specific advice from French and European Health Authorities (3)… IN ORDER TO HOLD ON TO THE HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS OF EUROS OF YEARLY PROFIT GAINED THROUGH THESE PRODUCTS BY THE COMPANIES PRODUCING THEM. 

Those three pesticides will be officially banned for a trial period of two years at the end of which the sanitary authorities will decide whether the ban has had an effect on the slaughtering of the bees and if a definitive ban is to be ordered.

But this alleged interdiction cannot have any effect on the health of bees. BECAUSE THE THREE BEEKILLING PESTICIDES WILL BE BANNED ONLY A FEW MONTHS A YEAR AND WILL BE PROFUSELY USED THE REST OF THE TIME – on about 85% of grains and on a large portion of the crops of fruit , vegetable and aromatic herbs – thus widely poisoning the soil and water and later spreading to the so-called «untreated» farmland.

Several studies have shown that those ultra-toxic substances can still be present in the soil three years after a treatment has been done (4)AND THAT UNTREATED CROPS WHICH ARE PLANTED ANEW IN THE SAME SOIL SHOW TRACES OF NEONICOTINOIDES EVEN IN THEIR POLLEN… THAT BEES LATER COME TO COLLECT. (5)

A the end of the two-year trial test , the companies will be able to show that bees continue to be decimated in spite of the ban on their products and thus state that they are in no way responsible. They will have succeeded in using their products and hold on to their profits – for a very long time.

This diabolic plan can only bring an unprecedented environmental disaster.

It is still possible to prevent this disaster BUT ACTING QUICKLY IS URGENT. In a few days the European Commission will adopt the final version of the european rules concerning those three pesticides.

It is urgent to act before the Commission takes a stand, if we want to obtain A REAL BAN ON THOSE PESTICIDES.   CLICK HERE NOW TO SIGN UP THE EUROPEAN PETITION AGAINST THE LOBBIES!

If we do not react now, this is what will happen in the next two years: 

-Neonicotinoids will continue to be used on winter crops, thus deeply permeating soil and water.

– Untreated Spring and Summer crops will become infected by the remnants of those pesticides and will poison bees.

– Bee large-scale mortality will persist, despite the alleged ban on neonicotinoids.

Syngenta, Monsanto, Bayer and all the agrochemical laboratories will be able to claim that their products have no effect on bee mortality and will obtain the complete rehabilitation of those products on the market.

And there will be nothing left for us but to weep!

WE MUST NIP THIS DISASTROUS PLAN IN THE BUD AND DEMAND FROM THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION A STRAIGHTFORWARD BAN ON THOSE BEEKILLING PESTICIDES, AS THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION IN FACT PRETENDS TO DO.

No more compromise, no more scheming…. If a two-year test is necessary to evaluate the real impact on pollinators of those pesticides, let us do it honestly, thoroughly!

According to INRA (the very official French Institue for Agronomical Research), farmers themselves would have nothing to lose from the test: pesticide consumption could be reduced by 30 to 40% without any reduction of their income – by simply getting back to rotating cultures that would quite effectively fight parasites while significantly reducing the use of chemical treatments(6).

Imagine, for France alone, there areover 20.000 tons of ultra-toxic substances which are unecessarily spread annually on our countryside!

The only ones suffering would be the agrochemical giant firms and their profits…But Nature is not concerned with profits!

SO PLEASE HELP POLLINIS IN CREATING A REAL SHOCK WAVE THROUGH ALL OF EUROPE TO COUNTER THE AGROCHEMICAL LOBBIES THAT ARE READY TO SACRIFICE YOUR HEALTH, YOUR FOOD AND EVEN NATURE IN THE YEARS TO COME SO AS TO HOLD ON TO THEIR IMMEDIATE PROFITS.

SIGN THIS PETITION AND SEND THIS E-MAIL TO AS MANY AS POSSIBLE AROUND YOU.

In advance, thank you!

 

Nicolas LAARMAN
National Secretary of Pollinis

 

If you want to know more on the subject :

1. The text of the European Comission banning three neonicotinoids :

 http://www.pollinis.org/IMG/doc/regulation_commission_europeenne_interdiction_3_neonicotinoides.doc

2. The excellent report from the Corporate Union Observatory :

 http://corporateeurope.org/publications/pesticides-against-pollinators

Or, here online, a good short resume in french from the Journal de l’Environnement .

http://www.journaldelenvironnement.net/article/comment-le-lobby-des-pesticides-se-bat-pour-les-neonicotinoides,34147

3. In early 2013, a report from the European Authority on Food Security (EFSA) confirmed that neonicotinoides represent a major risk for bees and pollinators.

http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/press/news/130116.htm?utm_source=homepage&utm_medium=infocus&utm_campai gn=beehealth

4. Neonicotinoids stick to the environment. Half the clothianidine life has been measured by the American Agency for Health Protection.

http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/chem_search/cleared_reviews/csr_PC-044309_2-Nov-10_b.pdf

See also the file published in 2010 by J.DeCant et M.Barrett in the review Environmental Protection (pp.1-99) : Environmental Fate et Ecological Risk Assessment for the Registration of CLOTHIANIDIN for Use as a Seed Treatment on Mustard Seed (Oilseed and condiment) and Cotton.

5. Nenonicotinoids have a persistent polluting effect on environment in the larger sense. notably on pollen. Imidaclopride for instance can be absorbed by untreated cultures as late as two years after being first utilised and still be found in toxic quantities in the pollen and nectar of flowers that were never treated.

In 2002 and 2003, 69.1% of the pollen collected by the bees of 25 hives in five french departments, on plants either treated or untreated , were contaminated by imidacloprid, though a ban on the utilization of this neurotoxine on sunflowers has been imposed in january 1999.

6. ECOPHYTO R & D file of INRA : « Reduction of pesticides ».

http://institut.inra.fr/Missions/Eclairer-decisions/Etudes/Toutes-les-actualites/Ecophyto-R-D

Pollinis – Réseau des Conservatoires Abeilles et Pollinisateurs
Association Loi 1901 Conservatoire des Fermes et de la Nature
143 avenue Parmentier – 75010 Paris www.pollinis.org

JOIN   POLLINIS
Help us   save the honeybees and biodiversity. We are exclusively financed by your   contributions. We do not receive any government subsidies.
Our team ensures that even   the smallest contribution will be used efficiently.

Pour ne plus recevoir nos informations, cliquez ici

Jun 082013
 

What do you think about this?

  • In an interview with Dr. Mercola, Dr. Elaine Ingham says GMO plant material “ulcerates” the digestive system of animals.  (thanks to Lynn for sending the article.)
  • Isn’t that the same as was said by the entomologist interviewed by Anna Maria Tremonti . . .  the larvae feeds on the root of the corn plant. That food then eats holes in” the digestive system of the larvae”.  The larvae dies.
  • All of which is reinforced by a video of an American farmer who saw his herd become sick and destroyed.  He traced it to the GM corn he was feeding them.   (I’ll track down the video and post the link.  It’s on this blog somewhere!)

 

. . .   But, … but honey! – – WE are eating the same GMO food (it’s just not labelled, we are kept in the dark).

 

In an earlier posting,  I wanted a better idea of WHAT FOODS ON THE GROCERY SHELF have GMO ingredients?  How much are we actually eating? 

 

I stumbled on food lists for people that have allergies to soy and then one for allergies to canola oil – – those are two of the largest GM crops.  If you are eating food with soy, canola, or corn you are almost assuredly eating GM plant material.

 

Which raises the obvious question:

 

  • Are people “allergic to” canola and soy  – – which implies that THEY, the people, have a problem   OR
  • Do GMO canola and GMO soy (and GMO corn?) make people sick? – – which is to say, the problem is THE FOOD, not the people.

 

If you remember the entomologist describing how the insect larvae is killed by the GM corn plant, and then read about Dr. Elaine Ingham’s work – – GMO plant material “ulcerates” the digestive system of animals,

 

If you’re smart enough to know that human beings are animals, not that much different from these other creatures,  AND you have an idea of how much GM plant material is in the average diet of a North American, you might want to . . .  I don’t know – – what does it make you feel like doing?

 

 

I want to help spread the word.  Lots of people are doing the same which is inspiring.  It should not be out of ignorance that we feed our families GM food products.

 

I updated the posting  A closer look at GMO ingredients in store-bought food.  It has the link to the Mercola article about Dr. Elaine Ingham’s work.

 

For the next international MAM in my community (March Against Monsanto October 12, 2013)  there is already talk about the possibility of a “lead-up” evening where we discuss “How” GM food works.  Too many people are not aware.  They cannot make informed choices about what they are eating.

 

A closer look at GMO ingredients in store-bought food

Jun 072013
 

Click on

http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2013/05/19/gmo-harms-food-production.aspx    

Very good material.  Among other things, Dr. Mercola discusses the work of Dr. Elaine Ingham.

Lynn supplied the link and writes:

No one actually spoke to the health impacts of GMO food and it seemed a bit vague why we are against GMO’s.

Perhaps we should have a pamphlet next time to hand out to people.

IMPORTANT NOTE:

Dr. Elaine Ingham says GMO plant material “ulcerates” the digestive system of animals.  The entomologist in an earlier posting said GMO plant material “eats holes in” the digestive system of the larvae.

I updated the posting  A closer look at GMO ingredients in store-bought food  to draw out the parallel.

The common theme is compelling;  people should be aware because WE ARE ANIMALS, too!  

QUESTION:

  • Are people “allergic to” canola and soy (see the above link)?  – – which implies that THEY have a problem   OR
  • Do GMO canola and GMO soy (and GMO corn?) make people sick? – – that is, the problem is THE FOOD, not the people.

When you get to the root of how GMO plants work, I’d say the answer is obvious.  It’s the latter.