Sandra Finley

2013-05-03 The FBI has gone berzerk. Former Black Panther Assata Shakur put on Most Wanted Terrorists List. Shakur in her own words, Democracy Now.

 Economy / Political Economy, Freedom of Speech. (Remove some wrong postings from category), Peace or Violence, Solidarity with the Warriors  No Responses »
May 032013
 

This is shocking.

Democracy Now (Amy Goodman) provides good coverage.

 

For those too young to know,  the first link contains the background and “Assata Shakur in her own words“.

http://www.democracynow.org/embed/story/2013/5/3/assata_shakur_in_her_own_words

 

The second link is the continuation of the discussion with

  • Shakur’s lawyer and
  • Angela Davis.

http://www.democracynow.org/2013/5/3/angela_davis_and_assata_shakurs_lawyer

 

The FBI has added the former Black Panther Assata Shakur to its Most Wanted Terrorists list 40 years after the killing for which she was convicted. Born Joanne Chesimard, Shakur was found guilty of shooting dead a New Jersey state trooper during a gunfight in 1973. Shakur has long proclaimed her innocence and accused federal authorities of political persecution. She escaped from prison in 1979 and received political asylum in Cuba. On Thursday, she became the first woman added to the FBI’s terrorist list, and the reward for her capture was doubled to $2 million.

We begin our coverage by airing Shakur’s reading of an open letter she wrote to Pope John Paul II during his trip to Cuba in 1998 after the FBI asked him to urge her extradition. “As a result of being targeted by [the FBI program] COINTELPRO, I was faced with the threat of prison, underground, exile or death,” Shakur said at the time. “I am not the first, nor the last, person to be victimized by the New Jersey system of ‘justice.’ The New Jersey State Police are infamous for their racism and brutality.” Hear Shakur read the letter in full on SoundCloud. Click here to watch our interview about her case with scholar and activist Angela Davis and Lennox Hinds, her longtime attorney.

Transcript 

This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.

JUAN GONZÁLEZ: We begin today’s show looking at the case of Assata Shakur, a legendary figure within the Black Panther Party and the Black Liberation Army. On Thursday, she became the first woman ever to make the FBI’s Most Wanted Terrorists list. In addition, the FBI and the state of New Jersey doubled the reward for her capture to $2 million.

 

Shakur was convicted in the May 2nd, 1973, killing of a New Jersey state trooper during a shootout that left one of her fellow activists dead. She was shot twice by police during the incident. In 1979, she managed to escape from jail, and she later fled to Cuba where she received political asylum. She has long proclaimed her innocence.

On Thursday, FBI Special Agent Aaron Ford spoke at a press conference announcing Shakur’s placement on the Most Wanted Terrorists list. He refers to Shakur as Joanne Chesimard, her original name.

AARON FORD: Openly and freely in Cuba, she continues to maintain and promote her terrorist ideology. She provides anti-U.S. government speeches espousing the Black Liberation Army message of revolution and terrorism. No person, no matter what his or her political or moral convictions are, is above the law. Joanne Chesimard is a domestic terrorist who murdered a law enforcement officer, execution-style.

 

AMY GOODMAN: That’s FBI Special Agent Aaron Ford. In a moment, we’ll be joined by two guests: the scholar and activist Angela Davis, who faced her own murder trial decades ago, and Lennox Hinds, Assata Shakur’s longtime attorney for some 40 years. But first we turn to Assata Shakur in her own words. In 1998, Democracy Now! aired her reading an open letter to Pope John Paul II during his trip to Cuba. She wrote the message after New Jersey state troopers sent the pope a letter asking him to call for her extradition.

 

ASSATA SHAKUR: My name is Assata Shakur, and I was born and raised in the United States. I am a descendant of Africans who were kidnapped and brought to the Americas as slaves. I spent my early childhood in the racist segregated South. I later moved to the northern part of the country, where I realized that Black people were equally victimized by racism and oppression.

I grew up and became a political activist, participating in student struggles, the anti-war movement, and, most of all, in the movement for the liberation of African Americans in the United States. I later joined the Black Panther Party, an organization that was targeted by the COINTELPRO program, a program that was set up by the Federal Bureau of Investigation to eliminate all political opposition to the U.S. government’s policies, to destroy the Black Liberation Movement in the United States, to discredit activists and to eliminate potential leaders.

Under the COINTELPRO program, many political activists were harassed, imprisoned, murdered or otherwise neutralized. As a result of being targeted by COINTELPRO, I, like many other young people, was faced with the threat of prison, underground, exile or death. The FBI, with the help of local police agencies, systematically fed false accusations and fake news articles to the press accusing me and other activists of crimes we did not commit. Although in my case the charges were eventually dropped or I was eventually acquitted, the national and local police agencies created a situation where, based on their false accusations against me, any police officer could shoot me on sight. It was not until the Freedom of Information Act was passed in the mid-’70s that we began to see the scope of the United States government’s persecution of political activists.

At this point, I think that it is important to make one thing very clear. I have advocated and I still advocate revolutionary changes in the structure and in the principles that govern the United States. I advocate self-determination for my people and for all oppressed inside the United States. I advocate an end to capitalist exploitation, the abolition of racist policies, the eradication of sexism, and the elimination of political repression. If that is a crime, then I am totally guilty.

To make a long story short, I was captured in New Jersey in 1973, after being shot with both arms held in the air, and then shot again from the back. I was left on the ground to die, and when I did not, I was taken to a local hospital where I was threatened, beaten and tortured. In 1977 I was convicted in a trial that can only be described as a legal lynching.

In 1979 I was able to escape with the aid of some of my fellow comrades. I saw this as a necessary step, not only because I was innocent of the charges against me, but because I knew that in the racist legal system in the United States I would receive no justice. I was also afraid that I would be murdered in prison. I later arrived in Cuba where I am currently living in exile as a political refugee.

The New Jersey State Police and other law enforcement officials say they want to see me brought to “justice.” But I would like to know what they mean by “justice.” Is torture justice? I was kept in solitary confinement for more than two years, mostly in men’s prisons. Is that justice? My lawyers were threatened with imprisonment and imprisoned. Is that justice? I was tried by an all-white jury, without even the pretext of impartiality, and then sentenced to life in prison plus 33 years. Is that justice?

Let me emphasize that justice for me is not the issue I am addressing here; it is justice for my people that is at stake. When my people receive justice, I am sure that I will receive it, too.

 

AMY GOODMAN: That is an excerpt of a letter Assata Shakur read, an open letter to Pope John Paul II, during his trip to Cuba in 1998. When we come back from break, we’ll be joined by Assata Shakur’s longtime attorney, Lennox Hinds, and the scholar and activist Angela Davis. Stay with us.

 

2013-05-01 Cameco’s $800-million tax battle, Globe & Mail

 Freedom of Speech. (Remove some wrong postings from category), Nuclear  No Responses »
May 032013
 

UPDATES:  put “Cameco” into the “SEARCH” button, upper right corner.

 

The uranium producer estimates it has avoided declaring $4.9-billion in Canadian income, saving it $1.4-billion in taxes, over the last 10 years.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/industry-news/energy-and-resources/camecos-800-million-tax-battle/article11665842/#dashboard/follows/

 

DAVID MILSTEAD

Special to The Globe and Mail

 

Did you know one of the largest sellers of uranium in Switzerland is Saskatoon-based Cameco Corp.? The Canada Revenue Agency has been aware for some time. And now Cameco shareholders are getting more details about the potential problems it may cause the company – as in more than $800-million in back taxes.

It wasn’t supposed to work out this way, of course. In 1999, Cameco set up a subsidiary, Cameco Europe Ltd., in low-tax Zug, Switzerland.

Cameco then signed a 17-year deal to take the uranium it produces in Canada, sell it to Cameco Europe, and have Cameco Europe make the final sale to the end customers all across the world.

Why inject a middleman into the transaction? Well, Cameco is selling the uranium to Cameco Europe at the low prices reflective of 1999, when the deal was signed. Cameco is recording little to any profit in Canada; instead, all the profits appear in Zug, where the tax rate is lower.

This has been a boon to Cameco’s bottom line. The uranium producer estimates it has avoided declaring $4.9-billion in Canadian income, saving it $1.4-billion in taxes, over the last 10 years.

We know this because Cameco has been fighting the Canada Revenue Agency since 2008 over this matter. The CRA has been slowly reassessing Cameco’s tax returns; it’s finished with 2007 now, and has five more – 2008 to 2012 – to go.

Until Wednesday, when Cameco released its first-quarter earnings, the fight seemed a relatively minor matter, because the company had enough accumulated losses to shield it from exposure to back taxes for the disputed returns of 2003 to 2007.

Each time the CRA reassesses a return, however, the taxpayer owes 50 per cent of the disputed bill. The taxpayer only gets it back if the CRA loses the case. Cameco has now run out of accumulated losses to cover these disputed taxes, as evidenced by a cash payment late last year to cover the 2007 return.

With Wednesday’s earnings, Cameco has provided new disclosure, in which it estimates it may need to cough up $400-million to $425- million in the short term as it waits to find out if it will prevail.

(The full tax bill, if Cameco loses the fight, would be $800-million to $850-million, or more than $2 per share.)

The company says it is “confident that we will be successful in our case.” But the analysts of Veritas Research Corp., who accurately predicted the numbers in Wednesday’s disclosure, disagree.

Pawel Rajszel, Dimitry Khmelnitsky and Diana Akmal reviewed the motions filed by the CRA in tax court. The CRA objects both to the structure of Cameco’s Swiss subsidiary and the “transfer prices” between the two.

Canada requires transfer prices – prices set between related parties – to be within a range that would be charged by independent parties dealing at arm’s length.

Helpfully, Cameco also has a deal in place, struck in 2001 with the Russian company Tenex, in which Cameco Europe is obtaining uranium from a third party at prices that have turned out to be below current market conditions.

Cameco said Wednesday the contracts of Cameco Europe are “generally comparable” to arm’s-length deals of the time. However, the company has recorded a provision of $65-million “where an argument could be made that our transfer price may have fallen outside of an appropriate range of pricing.”

That may not be the end of it, however. The Veritas analysts note that Cameco Canada “performed virtually all operating functions” for Cameco Europe, “while also providing performance guarantees – which we believe makes the contract incomparable to other market transactions.”

If the appropriate method for allocating profits is the relative contributions of Cameco Canada and Cameco Europe, the Veritas analysts say, “the profit allocation method would suggest all profits should be allocated to [Cameco Canada], which supports the CRA’s view that all of [Cameco Europe’s] income should be taxed in Canada.”

Grant Isaac, Cameco’s CFO, retorts that Cameco Europe has its own board of directors and a full-time CEO, Gerhard Glattes, who has no other duties with the company. Cameco Europe provides Cameco with compensation for the management duties – like legal advice – it does not have its own staff for. “It was established in accordance with all relevant laws and regulations when it was set up.”

In addition, he adds, “a transfer price dispute cannot be assessed in hindsight … to go back and say ‘Oh, well the future wasn’t what we thought’ – well, that’s not an appropriate way to do transfer-price analysis.”

A loss in the tax case – which may not occur until 2015 – would have even larger implications than a one-time $800-million tax bill; it will wipe out one of the key drivers of Cameco’s bottom line. Veritas estimates the company paid just $36-million in cash taxes for 2012 on $680-million pre-tax cash flow from operations, or a 5-per-cent rate.

The difference between that and the statutory rate of 27 per cent would come right out of cash flow – a cut of more than 20 per cent, Veritas says.

If you’ll pardon the pun, it’s becoming quite the taxing situation for Cameco shareholders.

 

Poison in the Offer – The Success Story of U.S. Giant Monsanto, from Manfred Ladwig

 Food, Genetically Modified, Health, Take back the University, Technology  No Responses »
May 022013
 

A half-hour documentary film on Monsanto, from Germany.

 

http://www.cultureunplugged.com/play/6274/Poison-in-the-Offer—The-Success-Story-of-U-S–Giant-Monsanto

Director: Manfred Ladwig | Producer: Manfred Ladwig Genre: Documentary | Produced In: 2007 | Story Teller’s Country: Germany

Synopsis: This very moment is not true, one could think. Thirty years after American GIs and Vietnamese Vietcong battled against and killed each other, they fight together as allies. Today they share one enemy: U.S. chemical giant Monsanto, producer of the defoliant agent orange. They fight in front of the second court of appeal in Manhattan, New York. They have one aim in common: they demand compensation because of remote damages at themselves and their children. Agent Orange has been sprayed over the Vietnamese Dschungel. The judges at the second court of appeal have to decide whether compensations have to be paid. The main question at hand is, what did Monsanto know about the danger of its product Agent Orange? Critics claim that Monsanto did know about the toxicity of their product very early. But the company restrained the truth, critics say. This film gives a portrait of Monsanto’s criminal activities. Also showing Monsanto’s latest business activities, this U.S. giant today is the world biggest producer of genetically modified seed. And as the film shows how Monsanto’s criminal biography continues in that field as well.

 

2013-04-30 Katz Group executive reprimanded for illegal 2012 political donation

 Corporatocracy or Democracy or Administrative State or WHAT?  No Responses »
May 022013
 

The article is well-titled:  a “REPRIMAND” for “ILLEGAL ACTIVITY”.

http://www.edmontonjournal.com/sports/Katz%2BGroup%2Bexecutive%2Breprimanded%2Billegal%2B2012%2Bpolitical/8318657/story.html

By Sarah O’Donnell, Edmonton Journal

 

EDMONTON – Elections Alberta censured a top Katz Group executive Tuesday, saying his $25,000 donation to the Progressive Conservative Party in 2012 was illegal.

But information from the elections agency suggested it could be the only problem flagged with $430,000 of controversial donations to the PC party connected to Edmonton Oilers owner Daryl Katz.

Hefty donations from Katz, several family members and top company executives have been under scrutiny since last fall when opposition leaders accused the PCs of breaching donation limits after reports that the money arrived in a single cheque.

Both the PCs and other opposition parties asked Elections Alberta to investigate.

In her Tuesday decision specifically about the donation by Katz Group chief financial officer Paul Marcaccio, acting chief electoral officer Lori McKee-Jeske confirmed the PC Party received a $430,000 bank draft from Katz Group Properties Inc. on April 16, 2012.

Marcaccio’s $25,000 piece of that contribution, which he repaid to the Katz Group with a personal cheque, should never have been made, she said, since his main home is Toronto. People who ordinarily live outside Alberta are prohibited from making political donations under provincial law.

The PC Party returned the $25,000 after learning from Elections Alberta the money came from a “non-ordinary” resident.

And because Marcaccio made “an error, believing in good faith,” co-operated with the investigation and acknowledged his mistake, Elections Alberta ruled a letter of reprimand was a suitable penalty, as opposed to a fine or prosecution.

Publishing the decision will have a “significant impact on Mr. Marcaccio personally, and given the likely profile of this case, will follow him for the balance of his career,” McKee-Jeske wrote in her decision.

“The public interest will be served by a fulsome public disclosure of the circumstances of the matter and Mr. Marcaccio’s commitment to further compliance.”

A spokesman for the Katz Group declined to comment Tuesday night.

According to Elections Alberta, the decision marks the first time an investigation into a contribution from someone outside the province has proven to be true. McKee-Jeske warned the case should be a caution to those who may work in Alberta, but live elsewhere.

“If there are future cases, the chief electoral officer may well consider imposing more severe sanctions or referring the matters to prosecution,” she wrote.

Premier Alison Redford did not comment on the decision Tuesday.

But PC party president Jim McCormick said in a letter to McKee-Jeske that party officials agreed with her findings that the PCs “did not knowingly solicit or accept a contribution” that broke the rules.

“Your letter confirms that it was impossible for the PCAA to have known that these donations were from a non-ordinary resident,” he wrote, noting later that the decision supports the conclusion that “the remaining donations must be separate contributions and therefore compliant with donation limits.”

Elections Alberta officials said they will release information on that larger investigation to people involved on Wednesday. But that information will only be released by the agency if someone involves makes a written request.

Under Alberta’s recently amended election laws, Elections Alberta has to publicly post their finding if laws are broken. If no breach occurs, however, the office does not automatically report the results, spokesman Drew Westwater said.

NDP Leader Brian Mason said he was glad to hear the PCs had returned Marcaccio’s donation.

But he said he felt the letter of reprimand failed to send a tough enough message.

“I think it’s very consistent with the slap-on-the-wrist approach of the chief electoral officers so far,” Mason said. “Not only do we have weak legislation, but it’s weakly enforced and I don’t think that sends the right message to others who might try the same thing.”

 

sodonnell  AT  edmontonjournal.com

© Copyright (c) The Edmonton Journal

2013-05-01 Charbonneau Commission: Ex-political organizer details decades of vote-buying

 Freedom of Speech. (Remove some wrong postings from category)  No Responses »
May 022013
 

Canadians are well-qualified to instruct other countries in how to run elections. . . ha!   How low do we go?

http://www.montrealgazette.com/news/Charbonneau+Commission+political+organizer+details+decades+vote+buying/8315897/story.html

 

By Monique Muise, THE GAZETTE

Gilles Cloutier, an unassuming 73-year-old who has been heavily involved in elections across Quebec since 1956, stunned the inquiry on Tuesday morning with tales of backdoor financing, vote-buying and conspiracy.

 

MONTREAL – Six decades of political experience, an astonishingly sharp memory and nothing to hide.

On Tuesday, Gilles Cloutier proved that he is, in many ways, everything the Charbonneau Commission hopes for in a witness. For five hours, the now-retired political organizer held the inquiry spellbound with tales of backdoor financing, vote-buying and conspiracy that stretched back all the way to the era of Maurice Duplessis.

There was no hesitation and little prompting as a steady stream of names, dates and dollar amounts poured out of the soft-spoken 73-year-old.

Cloutier began at the beginning, describing how he handed over washer and dryer sets, colour televisions and even “four cows” in exchange for provincial Liberal votes in the 1950s and 1960s. He recalled the legislative crackdown of the late 1970s — when the premier at the time, René Lévesque, introduced new rules forbidding private companies from donating to political coffers. Within a year, Cloutier testified, the companies had found a way around the legislation, asking their employees to write donation cheques and then reimbursing them.

“It was easy” to find volunteers, he said, because they could claim the tax credit at the end of each fiscal year.

By the time the 2000s rolled around, Cloutier estimated that a mere five to 10 per cent of political donations at the municipal level in Quebec were being made legally.

The low percentage was mirrored at the provincial level, he said, with only 15 to 20 per cent of party financing coming from legitimate sources. The numbers backed up the June 2012 testimony of former anti-corruption crusader turned MNA Jacques Duchesneau, who claimed that more than 70 per cent of party financing in Quebec is done off the books.

The dirty money is used for everything from campaign signs to the $200 to $300 payments made to supposed “volunteers,” Cloutier said.

“For 20 years now, volunteers have wanted to be paid. There is no such thing as a volunteer anymore.”

Cloutier’s decades of experience in political warfare did not go unnoticed by the biggest players in Quebec’s construction industry. In 1995, the witness said, he was recruited by local engineering firm Roche, and began using his extensive networks of contacts to secure work for the company in Montreal and the surrounding municipalities.

When it came time for voters to head to the polls, Cloutier explained, he would meet with local mayoral candidates and offer them a deal: the engineering firm would guarantee an election victory, and in return, the winning party would ensure that the company was awarded lucrative city contracts.

“So you were able to promise victory?” asked Charbonneau Commission chief counsel Sonia LeBel.

“Yes, normally,” Cloutier replied. “Sometimes, I could even predict the margin of victory.”

The witness said Roche would “lend” him to the municipal campaigns for the duration of the race, and he would always start by recruiting high-quality candidates. He then ensured they had money to burn and kept the party organized from start to finish. Cloutier said he even instructed candidates on the finer points of door-to-door campaigning. (“You don’t walk on the lawn.”) The final steps involved putting in place a sophisticated communications strategy to carefully manage any campaign blunders, and then implementing a highly organized system for getting people out to the polls. Cloutier’s method worked like a charm in the small town of Ste-Julienne, he alleged, with current mayor Marcel Jetté winning both the 1997 and 2003 elections after striking a deal with Roche.

Documents showing how Cloutier managed two budgets during the so-called “turnkey” elections — one real and one designed to be presented to Elections Quebec — were entered into evidence on Tuesday.

Jetté remains mayor of Ste-Julienne to this day. A call to Jetté from The Gazette Tuesday was not returned.

Normally, only the mayoral candidate in the municipality was aware of Roche’s involvement, Cloutier said — at least until after the election. If the party already had an official agent at the helm of the campaign, he or she would step aside and hand the reins over to him.

Cloutier confirmed that between 1995 and 2009, he organized more than 60 turnkey campaigns on behalf of Roche and, in later years, their competitor Dessau. He lost just “five or six.”

“For an engineering firm, a man who excels at organization and at turnkey elections brings big returns,” Cloutier testified.

Cloutier was full of brief and shocking anecdotes on Tuesday, but the one that really raised eyebrows in the hearing room involved Quebec’s 1995 referendum campaign. Seemingly off-the-cuff, the witness mentioned that the “No” side didn’t follow the rules when it came to financing its ultimately successful campaign. As an organizer in the federalist camp, Cloutier said he used cash to rent huge billboards and to hire security guards to watch them overnight to make sure they weren’t vandalized. Those expenses, Cloutier said, were covered by “friends” and never reported in any official budgets.

He is expected to re-take the stand on Wednesday morning.

 

mmuise  AT  montrealgazette.com

© Copyright (c) The Montreal Gazette

2013-04-30 Irregularities widespread in Canadian elections, report finds

 Electronic voting, Robocalls & Vote moving, Election Fraud  No Responses »
May 022013
 
By Stephen Maher, Postmedia NewsApril 30, 2013

 

OTTAWA — More than 165,000 people seem to have voted improperly in the last election, a new Elections Canada report has found, and the system for voting needs to be overhauled, although there isn’t enough time to do that before the next election.

Chief Electoral Officer Marc Mayrand commissioned the report after irregularities in the Toronto riding of Etobicoke Centre led to a court challenge that went to the Supreme Court of Canada.

Former Elections Canada executive Harry Neufeld audited 1,000 polls from the last election as well as three recent byelections, and discovered systematic errors in the processing of the 15 per cent of voters who show up on election day without having been registered.

“Serious errors, of a type the courts consider ‘irregularities’ that can contribute to an election being overturned, were found to occur in 12 percent of all Election Day cases involving voter registration, and 42 percent of cases involving identity vouching.”

The auditors estimate that there were irregularities associated with 1.3 per cent of all votes cast in the 2011 election, many involving paperwork errors with the vouching process for voters who need to be sworn in.

Those kinds of errors led the Ontario Superior Court to overturn the election result in Etobicoke Centre, where Liberal MP Borys Wrzesnewskyj was defeated by Conservative Ted Opitz by 79 votes on election day in 2011. The Supreme Court overturned that case on appeal since there was no evidence of fraud.

Mistakes are happening in ridings across Canada, Neufeld concludes, because the hastily trained army of 200,000 single-day election workers fail to understand the complicated paperwork involved. Many also don’t want to tell voters, especially older voters, that they have to go to a different polling station when they turn up at the wrong place.

Neufeld recommends that Elections Canada improve its training and supervision of election workers before voters are expected to go to the polls in 2015, but introduce a new model for the next election, scheduled for 2019.

The agency wants to do away with the traditional “polling division” model and instead introduce a model based on New Brunswick provincial and municipal elections, where voters can go to any polling station, where their name is checked off a computer database.

Elections Canada would like to set up a similar system, with “real time access to a national computerized voters list, utilizing Internet data communications. This capability would allow for ‘live’ voter registrations and updates, and automated list ‘strike-off’ processing in all locations.”

Neufeld suggests that system will likely only serve as a short-term step, since the agency is likely to eventually end up running Internet elections.

“Current internet voting systems carry with them serious, valid concerns about system security, user authentication, adequate procedural transparency, and preserving the secrecy of the vote,” he writes. “However, evolving technology and societal expectations seem very likely to modify this equation in coming years.”

 

smaher  AT   postmedia.com

© Copyright (c) Postmedia News

2013-04-30 Analysis Identifies Shocking Problems with Monsanto’s Genetically Engineered Corn, Mercola

 Food, Genetically Modified, Health  No Responses »
Apr 302013
 

http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2013/04/30/monsanto-gmo-corn.aspx?e_cid=20130430_DNL_art_1&utm_source=dnl&utm_medium=email&utm_content=art1&utm_campaign=20130430

Recommend:  go to the link where there are links to related info.

 

By Dr. Mercola

I’ve warned you of the potential dangers of genetically engineered (GE) foods for many years now, pointing out that such crops might have wholly unforeseen consequences. In recent years, such suspicions have increasingly proven correct.

 

One of the latest pieces of evidence supporting the suspicion that GE crops are in no way, shape or form comparable to their natural counterparts is a nutritional analysis that shows just how different they really are.

 

Inherent differences are essentially implied by the fact that GE crop seeds can be patented in the first place. And in many ways, I believe Monsanto is slowly but surely inching its way toward patenting nature itself, in the same way others are fighting to maintain patent rights for human DNA.1

 

These companies are trying to patent “life,” and they likely will unless they’re stopped by the courts. But it’s quite clear that humans cannot outsmart nature.

 

The latest nutritional analysis of GE corn couldn’t be more relevant as the recently passed Agricultural Appropriations Bill (HR9332) included a hotly detested provision (Section 735) that places Monsanto above the law. As noted by the featured article:3

 

 

“With the recent passing of the Monsanto Protection Act, there is no question that mega corporations like Monsanto are able to wield enough power to even surpass that of the United States government.

 

 

The new legislation provides Monsanto with a legal safeguard against federal courts striking down any pending review of dangerous genetically modified crops. It is ironic to see the passing of such a bill in the face of continuous releases of GMO dangers.”

 

At present, the only way to avoid GMOs is to ditch processed foods from your grocery list, and revert back to whole foods grown according to organic standards.

 

Analysis Finds Monsanto’s GE Corn Nutritionally Inferior and High in Toxins

 

 

A report given to MomsAcrossAmerica4 by an employee of De Dell Seed Company (Canada’s only non-GMO corn seed company) offers a stunning picture of the nutritional differences between genetically engineered (GE) and non-GE corn. Clearly, the former is NOT equivalent to the latter, which is the very premise by which genetically engineered crops were approved in the first place.

 

Here’s a small sampling of the nutritional differences found in this 2012 nutritional analysis:

•Calcium: GMO corn = 14 ppm / Non-GMO corn = 6,130 ppm (437 times more)

•Magnesium: GMO corn = 2 ppm / Non-GMO corn = 113 ppm (56 times more)

•Manganese: GMO corn = 2 ppm / Non-GMO corn = 14 ppm (7 times more)

 

GMO corn was also found to contain 13 ppm of glyphosate, compared to zero in non-GMO corn. This is quite significant and well worth remembering.

 

The Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) “safe” level for glyphosate in American water supplies is 0.7 ppm. In Europe, the maximum allowable level in water is 0.2 ppm. Organ damage in animals has occurred at levels as low as 0.1 ppm… At 13 ppm, GMO corn contains more than 18 times the “safe” level of glyphosate set by the EPA.

 

This is truly disturbing when you consider the fact that in countries like Argentina, glyphosate is blamed for the dramatic increase in devastating birth defects as well as cancer. Sterility and miscarriages are also increasing. This may be due to its similarity to DDT, which is well-known to cause reproductive problems, among other things.

 

Another health hazard associated with glyphosate is its effect on gut bacteria. Not only does it promote the growth of more virulent pathogens, it also kills off beneficial bacteria that might keep such pathogens in check—both in the soil, and in the gut of animals or humans that ingest the contaminated crop.

 

It’s important to understand that the glyphosate actually becomes systemic throughout the plant, so it cannot be washed off. It’s inside the plant. And once you eat it, it ends up in your gut where it can wreak total havoc with your health, considering the fact that 80 percent of your immune system resides there and is dependent on a healthy ratio of good and bad bacteria.

 

An additional disturbing piece of information is that GMO corn contained extremely high levels of formaldehyde. According to Dr. Huber, at least one study found that 0.97 ppm of ingested formaldehyde was toxic to animals. GMO corn contains a staggering 200 times that amount! Perhaps it’s no wonder that animals, when given a choice, avoid genetically engineered feed.

 

Next Up: Genetically Engineered Apples, Using New GE Technique

 

 

Besides so-called Roundup Ready crops, genetically engineered to resist otherwise lethal doses of glyphosate, there are other types of GE food crops. Another equally troublesome one is Bt crops, engineered in such a way as to contain a toxic protein within the plant itself. These were created by inserting a foreign gene into the plant in question.

 

Now we’re looking at yet another type of genetic engineering technology: RNA interference (RNAi), also known as post transcriptional gene silencing (PTGS).

 

According to the Organic Consumers Association (OCA),5 apples modified using this technique are slated for approval by the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) sometime this year. The apple will not require approval by the FDA, which is responsible for human food and animal feed. It only needs approval by the USDA, which is responsible for protecting agriculture from pests and plant diseases.

 

The new GMO Arctic® Apple does not turn brown when sliced or bitten into. For the cosmetic “advantage” of these genetically engineered apples, you get to be a test subject for yet another untested genetic modification technology. How’s that for a bargain?

 

According to OCA, non-organic apples are already among the most pesticide-laden foods sold. In the Pesticide Action Network’s analysis of the most recent USDA data, apples tested positive for 42 different pesticides, including two endocrine disrupting pesticides (organophosphate and pyrethroid). The additional risk of untested tinkering with the RNA is not a step in the right direction if we want safer, healthier foods. The OCA writes:6

 

 

“[U]nlike the case with GMO corn or salmon, scientists aren’t injecting pesticides or genes from foreign plants or animals into the genes of apples to create the Frankenapple. While most existing genetically engineered plants are designed to make new proteins, the Arctic Apple is engineered to produce a form of genetic information called double-stranded RNA (dsRNA). The new dsRNA alters the way genes are expressed. The result, in the Arctic Apple’s case, is a new double strand of RNA that genetically ‘silences’ the apple’s ability to produce polyphenol oxidase, an enzyme that causes the apple to turn brown when it’s exposed to oxygen.

 

 

Harmless? The biotech industry, OSF and some scientists say yes. But others, including Professor Jack Heinemann (University of Canterbury, New Zealand), Sarah Agapito-Tenfen (from Santa Catarina University in Brazil) and Judy Carman (Flinders University in South Australia), say that dsRNA manipulation is untested, and therefore inherently risky.

 

 

Recent research has shown that dsRNAs can transfer from plants to humans and other animals through food. The biotech industry has always claimed that genetically engineered DNA or RNA is destroyed by human digestion, eliminating the danger of these mutant organisms damaging human genes or human health. But many biotech scientists say otherwise. They point to evidence that the manipulated RNA finds its way into our digestive systems and bloodstreams, potentially damaging or silencing vital human genes.”

 

OCA also points out the indirect health consequences. The chemical compound used in the RNA manipulation process is one that also combats plant pests. So what might conceivably happen when you compromise the fruit’s ability to fend off insects? As noted by OCA, most likely, growers will have to start using more pesticides—on a fruit that’s already among the most heavily sprayed. In the end, all those pesticides end up in your body and, certainly, avoiding toxic exposures is important if you want to protect your health.

 

Despite What You Are Told GE Crops Are NOT the ‘Most Tested’ Product in the World

 

 

It’s important to realize that genetically engineered (GE) foods have never been proven safe for human consumption over a lifetime, let alone over generations. Monsanto and its advocates claim genetically engineered crops are “the most-tested food product that the world has ever seen.” What they don’t tell you is that:

a.Industry-funded research predictably affects the outcome of the trial. This has been verified by dozens of scientific reviews comparing funding with the findings of the study. When industry funds the research, it’s virtually guaranteed to be positive. Therefore, independent studies must be done to replicate and thus verify results

b.The longest industry-funded animal feeding study was 90 days, which recent research has confirmed is FAR too short. In the world’s first independently funded lifetime feeding study, massive health problems set in during and after the 13th month, including organ damage and cancer

c.Companies like Monsanto and Syngenta rarely if ever allow independent researchers access to their patented seeds, citing the legal protection these seeds have under patent laws. Hence, independent research is extremely difficult or nearly impossible to conduct. If these scientists get seeds from a farmer, they sue them into oblivion as one of their favorite tactics is to use the legal system to their advantage. Additionally, virtually all academic agricultural research is controlled by Monsanto as they are the primary supporters of these departments and none will risk losing their funding from them

d.There is no safety monitoring. Meaning, once the GE item in question has been approved, not a single country on earth is actively monitoring and tracking reports of potential health effects

 

Middle School Student’s Brilliant Experiment

 

 

Speaking of research; while there’s no research to support the long-term safety of GMOs, studies do show that organic foods are safer than their conventional counterparts in terms of toxic exposure, and likely far more nutritious as well.

 

Three years ago, middle school student Ria Chhabra created a science fair project to help settle a debate between her parents, revolving around whether or not organic foods have merit. Now 16 and a sophomore at Clark High School in Plano, Texas, Ria’s continued research into the effect of organic food on fruit flies has earned her top honors in a national science competition, and her work was recently published in the respected scientific journal, PloS One.7 As reported by the New York Times:8

 

 

“The research, titled Organically Grown Food Provides Health Benefits to Drosophila Melanogaster, tracked the effects of organic and conventional diets on the health of fruit flies. By nearly every measure, including fertility, stress resistance and longevity, flies that fed on organic bananas and potatoes fared better than those who dined on conventionally raised produce.

 

 

While the results can’t be directly extrapolated to human health, the research nonetheless paves the way for additional studies on the relative health benefits of organic versus conventionally grown food…

 

 

The difference in outcomes among the flies fed different diets could be due to the effects of pesticide and fungicide residue from conventionally raised foods. Or it could be that the organic-fed flies thrived because of a higher level of nutrients in the organic produce. One intriguing idea raises the question of whether organically raised plants produce more natural compounds to ward off pests and fungi, and whether those compounds offer additional health benefits to flies, animals and humans who consume organic foods.”

 

While the scientific merit of organic food continues to be studied and debated among scientists and laypeople alike, the issue has been settled in the Chhabra household. According to Ria, all the fresh produce the family buys is now organic.

 

 

 

Keep Fighting for Labeling of Genetically Engineered Foods

 

 

 

 

While California Prop. 37 failed to pass last November, by a very narrow margin, the fight for GMO labeling is far from over. The field-of-play has now moved to the state of Washington, where the people’s initiative 522, “The People’s Right to Know Genetically Engineered Food Act,” will require food sold in retail outlets to be labeled if it contains genetically engineered ingredients. As stated on LabelitWA.org:

 

 

“Calorie and nutritional information were not always required on food labels. But since 1990 it has been required and most consumers use this information every day. Country-of-origin labeling wasn’t required until 2002. The trans fat content of foods didn’t have to be labeled until 2006. Now, all of these labeling requirements are accepted as important for consumers. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) also says we must know with labeling if our orange juice is from fresh oranges or frozen concentrate.

 

 

Doesn’t it make sense that genetically engineered foods containing experimental viral, bacterial, insect, plant or animal genes should be labeled, too? Genetically engineered foods do not have to be tested for safety before entering the market. No long-term human feeding studies have been done. The research we have is raising serious questions about the impact to human health and the environment.

 

 

I-522 provides the transparency people deserve. I-522 will not raise costs to consumers or food producers. It simply would add more information to food labels, which manufacturers change routinely anyway, all the time. I-522 does not impose any significant cost on our state. It does not require the state to conduct label surveillance, or to initiate or pursue enforcement. The state may choose to do so, as a policy choice, but I-522 was written to avoid raising costs to the state or consumers.”

 

Remember, as with CA Prop. 37, they need support of people like YOU to succeed. Prop. 37 failed with a very narrow margin simply because we didn’t have the funds to counter the massive ad campaigns created by the No on 37 camp, led by Monsanto and other major food companies. Let’s not allow Monsanto and its allies to confuse and mislead the people of Washington and Vermont as they did in California. So please, I urge you to get involved and help in any way you can, regardless of what state you live in.

•No matter where you live in the United States, please donate money to these labeling efforts through the Organic Consumers Fund.

•If you live in Washington State, please sign the I-522 petition. You can also volunteer to help gather signatures across the state.

•For timely updates on issues relating to these and other labeling initiatives, please join the Organic Consumers Association on Facebook, or follow them on Twitter.

•Talk to organic producers and stores and ask them to actively support the Washington initiative.

2013-04-29 The Counter-Enlightenment, How government science advisers misrepresent science. Guardian, Monbiot. (Bees, EU neo nic ban)

 Corporatocracy or Democracy or Administrative State or WHAT?, Health, Propaganda, Sustainability  1 Response »
Apr 302013
 

http://www.monbiot.com/2013/04/29/2662/

By George Monbiot, published in the Guardian 30th April 2013

 

What happens to people when they become government science advisers? Are their children taken hostage? Is a dossier of compromising photographs kept, ready to send to the Sun if they step out of line?

I ask because, in too many cases, they soon begin to sound less like scientists than industrial lobbyists. The mad cow crisis 20 years ago was exacerbated by the failure of government scientists accurately to present the evidence. The chief medical officer wrongly claimed that there was “no risk associated with eating British beef”. The chief veterinary officer wrongly dismissed the research suggesting that BSE could jump from one species to another(1).

The current chief scientist at the UK’s environment department, Ian Boyd, is so desperate to justify the impending badger cull – which defies the recommendations of the £49m study the department funded(2) – that he now claims that eliminating badgers “may actually be positive to biodiversity”, on the grounds that badgers sometimes eat baby birds(3). That badgers are a component of our biodiversity, and play an important role in regulating the populations of other species, appears to have eluded him.

But the worst example in the past 10 years was the concatenation of gibberish published by the British government’s new chief scientist on Friday. In the Financial Times, Sir Mark Walport denounced the proposal for a temporary European ban on the pesticides blamed for killing bees and other pollinators(4). He claimed that “the consequences of such a moratorium could be harmful to the continent’s crop production, farming communities and consumers.” This also happens to be the position of the UK government, to which he is supposed to provide disinterested advice.

Walport’s article was timed to influence Monday’s vote by European member states, to suspend the use of three neonicotinoid pesticides. The UK, fighting valiantly on behalf of the manufacturers Syngenta and Bayer(5,6), did all it could to thwart the nations supporting this partial ban, but failed. Here’s how he justified his position.

First he maintained that “there is no measurable harm to bee colonies … when these pesticides have been applied on farms following official guidelines.” This statement is misleading and unscientific. The research required to support it does not exist.

The government carried out field trials which, it claimed, showed that “effects on bees do not occur under normal circumstances”(7). They showed nothing of the kind. As Professor Dave Goulson, one of the UK’s leading experts, explained to me, the experiment was hopelessly contaminated. The nests of bumblebees which were meant to function as a pesticide-free control group were exposed to similar levels of neonicotinoids as those in the experimental group. The government “might have been wise to abandon the trial. However, instead they chose to ‘publish’ it by putting it on the internet – not by sending it to a peer-reviewed journal. This is not how science proceeds.”(8)

What this illustrates is that these trials have taken place far too late: after the toxins have already been widely deployed. The use of neonicotinoids across Europe was approved before we knew what their impacts might be.

Experiments in laboratory or “semi-field” conditions, free from contamination, suggest that these toxins could be a reason for the rapid reduction in bee populations(9,10,11,12,13,14,15). We still know almost nothing about their impacts on other insect pollinators, such as hoverflies, butterflies, moths, beetles and midges, many of which are also declining swiftly.

Walport went on to suggest that the proposed ban would cause “severe reductions in yields to struggling European farmers and economies.” Again, this is simply incorrect: in its exhaustive investigation, published last month, the House of Commons Environmental Audit Committee concluded that “neonicotinoid pesticides are not fundamental to the general economic or agricultural viability of UK farming.”(16) In fact they can prevent a more precise and rational use of pesticides, known as integrated pest management. The committee reports that all the rape seed on sale in this country, for example, is pre-treated with neonicotinoids, so farmers have no choice but to use them, whether or not they are required(17).

He then deployed the kind of groundless moral blackmail frequently used by industry-funded astroturf campaigns. “The control of malaria, dengue and other important diseases also depends on the control of insect vectors.” Yes, it does in many cases, but this has nothing to do with the issue he was discussing: a partial ban on neonicotinoids in European crops. This old canard (if you don’t approve this pesticide for growing oilseed rape in Europe, children in Mozambique will die of malaria) reminds us that those opposed to measures which protect the natural world are often far worse scaremongers than environmentalists can be. How often have you heard people claim that “if the greens get their way, we’ll go back to living in caves” or “if carbon taxes are approved, the economy will collapse”?

But perhaps most revealing is Walport’s misunderstanding of the precautionary principle. This, he says, “just means working out and balancing in advance all the risks and benefits of action or inaction, and to make a proportionate response.” No it doesn’t. The Rio declaration, signed by the UK and 171 other states, defines it as follows: “Where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason for postponing cost-effective measures to prevent environmental degradation.”(18) This, as it happens, is the opposite of what his article sought to do. Yet an understanding of the precautionary principle is fundamental to Walport’s role.

Among the official duties of the chief scientist is “to ensure that the scientific method, risk and uncertainty are understood by the public.”(19) Less than a month into the job, Sir Mark Walport has misinformed the public about the scientific method, risk and uncertainty. He has made groundless, unscientific and emotionally manipulative claims. He has indulged in scaremongering and wild exaggeration in support of the government’s position.

In defending science against political pressure, he is, in other words, as much use as a suit of paper armour. For this reason, he will doubtless remain in post, and end his career with a peerage. The rest of us will carry the cost of his preferment.

 

www.monbiot.com

References:

1. http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2000/oct/27/bse1

2. John Bourne et al, June 2007. Bovine TB: The Scientific Evidence. Final Report of the  Independent Scientific Group on Cattle TB. http://archive.defra.gov.uk/foodfarm/farmanimal/diseases/atoz/tb/isg/report/final_report.pdf

3. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/countryside/10015391/Badger-culls-could-help-songbirds.html

4. http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/9045f86e-ab51-11e2-8c63-00144feabdc0.html#ixzz2RYjCpCUI

5. http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2013/apr/28/europe-insecticides-ban-save-bees

6. http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/damian-carrington-blog/2013/apr/04/bees-pesticides-neonicotinoid-europe-ban

7. Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, March 2013. An assessment of key evidence about Neonicotinoids and bees.

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/181841/pb13937-neonicotinoid-bees-20130326.pdf.pdf

8. Dave Goulson, pers comm, 26th April 2013.

9. eg Penelope R. Whitehorn et al, 29th March 2012. Neonicotinoid Pesticide Reduces Bumble Bee Colony Growth and Queen Production. Science Vol. 336 no. 6079, pp. 351-352. doi: 10.1126/science.1215025

10. Mickaël Henry et al, 29th March 2012. A Common Pesticide Decreases Foraging Success and Survival in Honey Bees. Science Vol. 336 no. 6079, pp. 348-350. doi: 10.1126/science.1215039

11. Mary J. Palmer et al, 27 March 2013. Cholinergic pesticides cause mushroom body neuronal inactivation in honeybees. Nature Communications Vol. 4, no.1634.

doi:10.1038/ncomms2648

12. Richard J. Gill et al, 1st November 2012. Combined pesticide exposure severely affects individual- and colony-level traits in bees. Nature Vol.491, pp.105–108. doi:10.1038/nature11585

13. Christof W. Schneider et al, 11th January 2012. RFID Tracking of Sublethal Effects of Two Neonicotinoid Insecticides on the Foraging Behavior of Apis mellifera. PLoS ONE 7(1): e30023. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0030023

14. J. Bernal et al, December 2010. Overview of Pesticide Residues in Stored Pollen and Their Potential Effect on Bee Colony (Apis mellifera) Losses in Spain.

Journal of Economic Entomology, Vol. 103, no. 6, pp.1964-1971.

15. Sally M. Williamson and Geraldine A. Wright, 7th February 2013. Exposure to multiple cholinergic pesticides impairs olfactory learning and memory in honeybees. The Journal of Experimental Biology, 1477-9145. doi:10.1242/jeb.083931

16. House of Commons Environmental Audit Committee, 25th March 2013. Pollinators and Pesticides. Seventh Report of Session 2012–13, Volume I.

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201213/cmselect/cmenvaud/668/668.pdf

17. As above.

18. Principle 15. http://www.unep.org/documents.multilingual/default.asp?documentid=78&articleid=1163

19. http://www.bis.gov.uk/go-science/chief-scientific-adviser

2013-04-29 A win! Bee-harming pesticides banned in Europe, The Guardian

 Corporatocracy or Democracy or Administrative State or WHAT?, Food, Health, Sustainability  1 Response »
Apr 292013
 

NOTE:   There are PROTESTS against the chemical-biotech corporations AROUND THE WORLD,  on Saturday, May 25th.    Find or organize one in your area.

Google `March against Monsanto“.    Al Jazeera posting 6 days ago is informative –http://stream.aljazeera.com/story/201304232041-0022698   You`ll see where Hawaii is one of the hotspots.   Make your own place another!!

I will be sending out more info.

 

NOW – back to   A win!  Bee-harming pesticides banned in Europe!

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2013/apr/29/bee-harming-pesticides-banned-europe

Note:

–    The video assumes that viewers know about SmartStax Corn.  I appended a note in case you don’t (EIGHT different biocides are engineered into the DNA of SmartStax corn).

–     A listing of brand names under which the neo nic pesticides are sold is on the video.

 

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

By Damian Carrington

EU member states vote ushers in continent-wide suspension of neonicotinoid pesticides

A bee collects pollen from a sunflower in Utrecht

A bee collects pollen from a sunflower in Utrecht, the Netherlands. EU states have voted in favour of a proposal to restrict the use of pesticides linked to serious harm in bees.  Photograph: Michael Kooren/Reuters

 

Europe will enforce the world’s first continent-wide ban on widely used insecticides alleged to cause serious harm to bees, after a European commission vote on Monday.

 

The suspension is a landmark victory for millions of environmental campaigners, backed by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), concerned about a dramatic decline in the bee population. The vote also represents a serious setback for the chemical producers who make billions each year from the products and also UK ministers, who voted against the ban. Both had argued the ban would harm food production.

 

Although the vote by the 27 EU member states on whether to suspend the insect nerve agents was supported by 15 nations, but did not reach the required majority under voting rules. The hung vote hands the final decision to the European commission, which will implement the ban.

 

Tonio Borg, health and consumer commissioner, said: “Our proposal is based on a number of risks to bee health identified by the EFSA, [so] the European commission will go ahead with its plan in coming weeks.”

 

Friends of the Earth’s head of campaigns, Andrew Pendleton, said: “This decision is a significant victory for common sense and our beleaguered bee populations. Restricting the use of these pesticides could be an historic milestone on the road to recovery for these crucial pollinators.”

 

The UK, which abstained in a previous vote, was heavily criticised for switching to a “no” vote on Monday.

 

Joan Walley MP, chair of parliament’s green watchdog, the environmental audit committee, whose investigation had backed a ban and accused ministers of “extraordinary complacency”, said the vote was a real step in the right direction, but added: “A full Commons debate where ministers can be held to account is more pressing than ever.”

 

Greenpeace’s chief scientist, Doug Parr, said: “By not supporting the ban, environment secretary, Owen Paterson, has exposed the UK government as being in the pocket of big chemical companies and the industrial farming lobby.”

 

On Sunday, the Observer revealed the intense secret lobbying by Paterson and Syngenta.

 

The environment minister, Lord de Mauley, countered, saying: “Having a healthy bee population is a top priority for us but we did not support the proposal because our scientific evidence doesn’t support it. We will now work with farmers to cope with the consequences as a ban will carry significant costs for them.”

 

Syngenta, which makes one of the three neonicotinoids that have been suspended, said: “The proposal ignores a wealth of evidence from the field that these pesticides do not damage the health of bees. The EC should [instead] address the real reasons for bee health decline: disease, viruses and loss of habitat.”

 

Bees and other insects are vital for global food production as they pollinate three-quarters of all crops. The plummeting numbers of pollinators in recent years has been blamed on disease, loss of habitat and, increasingly, the near ubiquitous use of neonicotinoid pesticides.

 

A series of high-profile scientific studies has linked neonicotinoids – the world’s most widely used insecticides – to huge losses in the number of queen bees produced and big rises in the numbers of “disappeared” bees – those that fail to return from foraging trips.

 

The commission proposed the suspension after the EFSA concluded in January that three neonicotinoids – thiamethoxam, clothianidin and imidacloprid – posed an unnacceptable risk to bees. The three will be banned from use for two years on flowering crops such as corn, oilseed rape and sunflowers, upon which bees feed.

 

A spokesman for Bayer Cropscience said: “Bayer remains convinced neonicotinoids are safe for bees, when used responsibly and properly … clear scientific evidence has taken a back-seat in the decision-making process.”

 

Prof Simon Potts, a bee expert at the University of Reading, said: “The ban is excellent news for pollinators. The weight of evidence from researchers clearly points to the need to have a phased ban of neonicotinoids. There are several alternatives to using neonicotinoids and farmers will benefit from healthy pollinator populations as they provide substantial economic benefits to crop pollination.”

 

Neonicotinoids have been widely used for more than decade and are less harmful than some of the sprays they replaced, but scientific studies have increasingly linked them to poor bee health.

 

Many observers, including the National Farmers’ Union, accept that EU regulation is inadequate, as it only tests on honeybees and not the wild pollinators that service 90% of plants. The regulatory testing also only considers short-term effects and does not consider the combined effects of multiple pesticides. The chemical industry has warned that a ban on neonicotinoids would lead to the return of older, more harmful pesticides and crop losses but campaigners point out this has not happened during temporary suspensions in France, Italy and Germany and that the use of natural pest predators and crop rotation can tackle problems.

 

“It is imperative that any alternative chemicals to be used in their place must first pass the same tests failed by the neonicotinoids,” said Dr Christopher Connolly, a bee expert at the University of Dundee. “The recent findings have highlighted an urgent need for more rigorous safety testing protocols.”

 

In Brussels, the countries that voted against the ban were: the UK, Czech Republic, Italy, Hungary, Romania, Slovakia, Austria and Portugal. Ireland, Lithuania, Finland and Greece abstained. Belgium, Bulgaria, Denmark, Estonia, Spain, France, Cyprus, Germany, Latvia, Luxembourg, Malta, the Netherlands, Poland, Slovenia and Sweden voted in favour.

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

ABOUT “STARTSTAX” CORN,  from

2011-01-10 Enviro-Pig = pig genes + E. coli genes + mouse DNA. Seriously. Coming to your favourite restaurant and you will never know the difference!

EXCERPT:

There is no way of tracking the health impacts of pork produced from “enviro-pigs” with their E. coli and mouse DNA, themselves raised on a diet of GM corn and soy because the Government regulatory system bowed to industry demands to require no labeling.

Remember: corn and soybeans are two of the largest bioteched crops. People may remember GM “smartstax” corn: inserted into it is material related to EIGHT different biocides to produce resistance to various chemical applications for “weeds”, insects, fungi, etc. Yes, the problems are created because the animals are being fed materials they have not evolved to eat. The same is happening with cattle in intensive livestock operations, as with pigs.

You think that we have an epidemic of childhood obesity, diabetes and cancer? Wait until the full effects of the introduction of GM meat are experienced. But it will be impossible to establish cause-and-effect because the interactions are complex, and because there is no labeling.  (in North America)

 

 Older Entries  Newer Entries