Rallyround the Flag

JOY AS PELARGONIUM PATENT REVOKED

Munich 26 January 2010.
The Opposition Division of the European Patent Office (EPO) has today
revoked a patent granted to Dr. Willmar Schwabe (Schwabe) in its entirety.
The patent was opposed by the African Centre for Biosafety (ACB) from
South Africa acting on behalf of a rural community in Alice, in the
Eastern Cape, in collaboration with the Swiss anti-biopiracy watchdog, the
Berne Declaration.

The patent was in respect of a method for producing extracts of
Pelargonium sidoides and Pelargonium reniforme to make Schwabe's
blockbuster cough and colds syrup, Umckaloabo. It was revoked because the
Opposition Division found that the patent did not satisfy the requirements
of the European Patent Convention dealing with inventiveness.

Both species of pelargonium are harvested from the wild in the Eastern
Cape and exported to Europe for the production of Umckaloabo.

Nomtunzi Api, a representative from the Alice community, expressed elation
in response to the revocation, "this is the first time that a patent is
challenged successfully by Africans. It gives us hope for the future
because the patent ends Schwabe's monopoly over the use of our genetic
resources and traditional knowledge."
According to Mariam Mayet of the ACB, "Patent systems are seriously
flawed. It is inherently unfair that public interest NGOs should have to
challenge patents, at enormous effort and expense, to bring about equity
and justice in protecting resources and traditional knowledge from the
South"

For more information, please see the ACB website at
www.biosafetyafrica.org.za
• Mariam Mayet: Cell +27 83 269 4309
• Nomtunzi Api in Germany until 28th January: Tel +49 (0) 8954 90 340 Room
301.



Share

Republished to remind Bill Gates Foundfation of their promises

""We in the alliance will not incorporate GMO's in our programmes. We shall work with farmers using traditional seeds."

By Trevor Wells



The Farmers' Legal Action Group-South Africa welcomes the first firm announcement that the Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa (AGRA) will not fund Genetically Modified seeds by the new Chief Executive of AGRA, Kofi Annan

The announcement today,17-July-2007, was reported in Business Daily (Kenya), in an article by Allan Odhiamo headlined "Annan rules out the use of GMO's in the war on hunger in Africa."

The former United Nations General-Secretary said "Poor pricing of commodities, and not type of seeds, keeps African growers away from their farmlands despite spiraling food insecurity and poverty on the continent."

This is complete turn around by the Gates/Rockefeller Foundation who up to now have been hell bent on forcing GM seeds down the throats of the African people.

The previous Green Revolution was severely criticised for removing peasant farmers off their heritage lands to be replaced by huge agrobusiness farms in third world Countries. It was hailed as a huge success in first world countries which reaped the benefits of cheap food from the south. Apologists for the system claimed that they had raise levels of employment.

This announcement comes in the wake of the South African Government applying due diligence in rejecting an application by the African Biofortified Sorghum(ABS) Consortium to do trials in South Africa with an American patented sorghum gene. The Consortium claimed it was a truly African Sorghum. According to the ABS website "the consortium comprised nine "seven African and two American" institutions led by Africa Harvest Biotech Foundation International(AHBFI). Africa Harvest's communication activities have been supported byCropLife, a global federation 'representing the plant science industry' and led by companies like BASF, Bayer CropScience, Dow AgroSciences, DuPont , Monsanto and Syngenta. According to the AHBFI Funding Statement they are a well-resourced and highly professional lobbying operation. The US$18.5 million project was funded as part of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation's Grand Challenge in Global Health program."

The rejection by the South African Government was based on the results of scientific research funded by US-AID and done by Dr Gurling Bothma of the Agricultural Research Council (ARC) in Roodeplats.The research proved conclusively that all native African relatives of sorghum including Sudan Grass would be adulterated by the American patented gene. Being an African, Kofi Annan, fully understands the spiritual connection between the land, the seeds,and the ancestors.

Kofi's inaugural speech in Cape Town can be read on the new Agra-alliance.org website launched to coincide with the official announcement of his appointment.

The website confirms that the Alliance "Programe for Africa's Seed Systems" (PASS) is funding African-led initiatives that use conventional breeding to develop new varieties of maize, cassava, beans, rice, sorghum, and other crops resistant to diseases and pests."

Credible community based farmers organisations with the links to AGRA are sadly missing from their website.
The list is still overweighted with international and African organisations who have no standing or legitimacy at grassroots community farming level in the African context. This however is a legacy of the past largely due to funding by biotech industry fronts, the World Bank and US-AID. What is pleasing is that the usual biotech brigade and industry front organisations have been very wisely, surgically cleansed from the list. It is clear that with the disastrous record of smuggling, bribery and racketeering which some of them are burdened with, would prove to be the kiss of death for AGRA.

Concerned African environmental groups and communal farmers have been monitoring behind the scenes, top level, negotiations for some months. The clear, unequivocle announcement not to finance GM0's together with the appointment of former UN-Secretary General Kofi Annan as the Chairperson of AGRA sends out a clear signal that good faith negotiation with a view to building long term relationships is the way forward.

Farmers' Legal Action Group- South Africa
www.flag-sa.org/blog/rallyround.html

Trevor Wells
Farmers Legal Action Group-South Africa


On 26 June 2006 Farmers legal Action-South Africa published an article headed "Monsanto tells a pack of lies in South Africa". See article below. The article exposed how Monsanto had told the South African Advertising Authority (ASA) that MON 863 was not their product. MON 863 was in fact their product and had been found to cause damage to rats in independent trials in Europe. Monsanto had in fact made an application for this product to be released in South Africa.
The ASA ordered Monsanto SA to withdraw its advert which depicted a mother with two children in a kitchen looking at a cake. Among other false claims the advert stated "no negative reactions to GM foods have ever been reported".
The advert also falsely claimed that genetically modified foods contained enhanced proteins, vitamins and anti-oxidants and removed allergens.
Whilst there was an uproar from responsible parenting organisations and in fact proof that no commercial GM products had ever been commercially released with the enhanced claims, the ASA found it unnecessary to deal with those aspects. It ordered the removal of the advert based on the false claim that "No negative reactions to GM foods have ever been reported."
During the hearing, Monsanto attempted to distract the worthy panel of arbitrators, headed by Justice King, a no non-sense judge who rose to fame as the doyen of "Corporate Governance",
by arguing the merits of GM products as against the truthfulness of their claims. They produced a letter from Covance Laboratories in the USA, which claimed that they were an independent laboratory and which "praised the benefits of GM Corn." Justice King ruled that the benefits of GM corn had nothing to do with the case in front of them.

Covance Laboratories have a history of abuse and have been fined on several occasions in Europe and the USA for the appalling conditions under which experiments are conducted and for outright vicious treatment of laboratory animals. Their track record is second only to Monsanto's long history of convictions for racketeering, bribery and corruption.
Covance was used by big tobacco to produce propaganda which was also proved false

Monsanto clearly lives under the misconception that South African judges are stupid, because apart from the serious submissions mentioned above they would not have presented Covance Laboratories as an "independent" source in order to verify their safety claim. Covance, USA's support of Monsanto is even more surprising given the fact that European researchers employed by Covance Laboratories (Europe) discovered and reported numerous biological effects on rats fed MON863, i.e.
blood stream anomalies that varied by sex (increase in white blood cell
levels and lymphocytes in males, decrease in new red blood cells in females,
increase in female blood sugar levels, in addition to renal lesions
(inflammations, kidney stones) and variations in kidney weight.

The ink on the judgement ordering the withdrawal of this false advert had hardly dried when, on 21 August 2007, Kobus Steenkamp, Marketing Manager for Monsanto, issued this statement headed:
"ASA accepts Monsanto's 'GM Is Safe' advertisement"
Monsanto's Steenkamp added: "The Advertising Standards Authority has now approved this advertisement and accepts that the facts have been verified by independent and reliable sources." He added "The Advertising Standards Authority (ASA has accepted the revised wording from Monsanto, which states, " no substantiated scientific or medical negative reactions to GM foods have ever been reported".
According to the article "Another spin by GM Giant Monsanto" published by The South African NGO net ,the Advertising Standards Authority categorically denied Monsanto's statement.

Monsanto's however went ahead and published their advert with the same picture and wording except for the added "No substantiated medical or scientific ......".

Mark Wells, the organic farmer, and founder member of Farmers Legal Action Group, South Africa who was the successful applicant in the previous incident, once more challenged the advert.

On 19 December 2007 Judge King of the ASA ruled that despite the amended wording not being exactly the same, the overall communication remains unchanged. A hypothetical reasonable person would interpret the claim to mean that tests were conducted in this regard and no negative reactions were found The Respondent, Monsanto, is therefore found guilty of breaching the previous ruling.

Listen to Make a Difference by Tucan-Tucan

Monsanto tells a pack of lies to the Advertising Standards Authority By Trevor Wells Farmers' Legal Action Group-South Africa Mark Wells, an organic farmer from Cintsa on the Wild Coast, South Africa, challenged the claim of a Monsanto advert that no negative reactions to Genetically Modified food have been reported. The false claim was made in the Monstanto advert which appeared in the widely read "You Magazine" on February 15th, 2007. Wells produced evidence to repudiate the claim. An arbitration panel consisting of eight members was chaired by former High Court Judge Mervyn King SC whose cutting edge 'King Report on Corporate Governance' is hailed as the best practice corporate governance bible. In view of the prima facie evidence produced by the complainant, the ASA opened the proceedings by stating that the matter before them for consideration was whether the advert was in breach of two sections of the Code of Practice: Substantiation Misleading claims Dealing with the substantiation section first the ASA ruled that the onus is on the advertiser to substantiate the claim. Monsanto addressed the ASA at length and submitted inter alia that it had a strict code of conduct and that MON 863 was not their product. The facts are that MON 863 is indeed a product of Monsanto and that Monsanto had suppressed the evidence of serious damage to the liver and kidneys of rats in their own GM maize trials until ordered to release this evidence by a German Court. Furthermore Monsanto had applied to the South African GM regulatory authority for a commodity release permit for MON 863. Monsanto then argued that after the rats had contracted liver damage Monsanto contracted five 'independent' scientists to assess the data supplied by them and they concluded that MON 863 had no adverse effect as claimed by the complainant. Monsanto then changed their tack in mid-stream and argued that rather than focus on the two conflicting studies the ASA should focus on the benefits of GM maize. The substantiation section of the code provides that any advertiser must be able to substantiate any claim objectively with documentary evidence which emanates from an independent, credible and expert source acceptable to the ASA. The ASA then invoked this clause. Monsanto's lawyers then pulled a letter out of the hat from Covance Laboratories in the USA which inter alia stated that they were not affiliated with Monsanto. After applying their minds to the letter from Covance in the USA, Justice King ruled that the benefits of "GM-Corn" had nothing to do with the case in front of them. After having given Monsanto every opportunity to substantiate their claim they had failed to do so. The letter from Covenance made no mention of the issue which was before the ASA for consideration. "The statement which the complainant alleges is false, to wit: 'This is one of the most extensively tested and controlled types of food, and no negative reactions have ever been reported.' goes beyond merely indicating safety. It expressly states that out of all the studies done in this field no negative effects have ever been reported." Without reference to the fact that Monsanto had wasted the time of an eight member panel and come to the hearing with dirty hands, Monsanto was politely informed that their claim was unsubstantiated and in breach of the Code of Practice. The ASA further ruled that as the claim was unsubstantiated it was not necessary to consider whether it was misleading. Monsanto was ordered to immediately withdraw their claim and given the standard polite warning, which applies to all advertisers, that in future they must make sure that they can substantiate any claims before they publish them. In January, this year, Monsanto was fined 15,000 euros (19,000 dollars) in a French court for misleading the public about the environmental impact of herbicide Roundup. A former chairman of Monsanto Agriculture France was found guilty of false advertising for presenting Roundup as biodegradable and claiming that it left the soil clean after use. Monsanto's French distributor Scotts France was also fined 15,000 euros. In 2005 Monsanto was caught smuggling South African produced GM Bollgard cotton seed into Indonesia disguised as rice. Monsanto was fined for bribing Indonesian officials. More recently in June this month, a second peer-reviewed case involving another variation of Monsanto's GM maize, namely, NK603, has been shown by studies to be potentially toxic to humans. NK 603 has been approved for food, feed, processing, and propagation in Europe and the Philippines The new research, carried out by the French scientific research institute CRIGEN, involves biotech firm Monsanto's NK603 GMO corn (marketed commercially under the name Round-up Ready) which was approved as food and feed in the country in 2003, and for propagation in 2005. Rats that were fed GM maize showed significant differences in measurements, as well as significant weight differences compared to those fed with normal maize. Almost 70 statistically significant differences were observed and reported - 12 for hematology parameters, 18 for clinical chemistry parameters, nine for urine chemistry parameters, six for the organ weights (brain, heart, liver), 14 for body weights and body weight changes, and eight for food consumption. toxicity, The most alarming was the diminished brain size. Scientists warned that this was a danger warning for growing children. Here is the unsubstantiated Monsanto's advert which had to be withdrawn after the judgment: Is your food safe? Biotechnology - the true facts The safety of genetically modified food products though biotechnology remains a subject of uncertainty to many people, but after more than twenty years' of research and ten years' commercial use, genetically modified grain products have been found to be just as healthy, nutritious and safe as normal products. All commercially approved grain products that have been genetically modified adhere to strict food, feed and environmental safety guidelines of regulatory authorities worldwide. This is one of the most extensively tested and controlled types of food, and no negative reactions have ever been reported. In fact, these innovative products also lead to food with improved nutritional value, which includes enhanced vitamin A, protein and antioxidant content, as well as better food safety through the removal of allergens and anti-nutrients. In short, you can use it with confidence! Tested. Healthy. Nutritious. Safe.

By The Editors

Scientific American August 2009

Advances in agricultural technology "including, but not limited to, the genetic modification of food crops" have made fields more productive than ever. Farmers grow more crops and feed more people using less land. They are able to use fewer pesticides and to reduce the amount of tilling that leads to erosion. And within the next two years, agritech companies plan to introduce advanced crops that are designed to survive heat waves and droughts, resilient characteristics that will become increasingly important in a world marked by a changing climate.

THE ANGRY MERMAID WINNER IS...
Monsanto wins award for worst corporate climate lobbyist in Copenhangen
*****

Copenhagen, December 15, 2009 - The winner of the Angry Mermaid Award 2009, announced by award-winning writer and journalist Naomi Klein at the UN climate talks in Copenhagen today is the biotech giant Monsanto with 37 per cent of the total vote [1].

Oil giant Shell took second place (18 per cent) in the Award for lobbying to sabotage effective action on climate change, followed by the American Petroleum Institute (14 per cent).
Sasol
Nominated for its national and international lobbying campaign to promote Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) as a clean solution to the dirty business of producing liquid fuels from coal and gas.

Background
Sasol is a South African company involved in mining, energy, chemicals and synthetic fuels (synfuels). It produces petrol from coal – known as coal to liquids (CTL), which is a dirty business that produces twice as many greenhouse gas emissions as the standard refining of petrol from crude oil.

Given that this is Sasol’s core business, it is not surprising that the company is one of the biggest emitters of carbon dioxide (CO2) on the African continent – Sasol’s Secunda plant in South Africa is the world’s single biggest emitter of CO2. The company knows that climate change could threaten its future and concedes in official documents that international efforts to counter climate change could have a “material adverse effect” on its business and “financial condition”.

In recent years, Sasol has been on a major public relations and lobbying drive to sell CTL technology to the world, using Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) as the panacea for this dirty product. As Time magazine reported last year: “Imagine the public relations nightmare facing an oil company that uses technology responsible for powering Nazi Germany, that propped up apartheid for decades and that operates a plant with the dubious distinction of being the world's biggest single-point source of carbon dioxide.”

Despite its dirty product, the company’s CEO, Pat Davies told the magazine “We are an innovative company. We can be part of this solution too.”

Lobbying Activities
In order to convince politicians, the public and regulators that Sasol is part of the “solution”, it has embarked on an intensive domestic and international lobbying campaign. Sasol’s lobbying strategy is multi-pronged: it aims to promote the acceptability and use of CTL technology around the world, and create a wider market for its activities. Whilst at the same time it promotes CCS technology as a potential way of reducing emissions from its activities.

At home, the once state-owned company enjoys a close relationship with the government.

It has played an influential role in the development of South Africa’s Long Term Mitigation Scenario, the most recent key government document which sets out plans to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. South Africa has not ruled out future new plants for converting coal to liquid, despite the high levels of emissions generated. Sasol has also promoted CCS through its involvement in policy talks.

Active on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
As Sasol’s 2008 Sustainable Development Report says: “To advance our appreciation of the causes, Sasol plays a role on the international stage via the UN’s Global Compact and Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. In support of CCS solutions, we are on the South African delegation to the multinational Carbon Sequestration Leadership Forum.”

Sasol has also succeeded in having one of its scientists – Fred Goede - sit on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) - the scientific body responsible for identifying the level and nature of the risk posed by climate change. Goede is not only a member of the IPCC, he also wrote a recent IPCC report on CCS – the technology promoted by Sasol.

But as WWF South Africa has pointed out, even if technological advances allow Sasol to reduce the emissions generated by producing synfuels, CCS will not reduce the level of emissions of the vehicles running on the resulting synfuels. Moreover at the present time, CCS remains an unproven commercial technology.

Carbon Sequestration Leadership Forum - Burying the problem internationally
Sasol is an active player in the Carbon Sequestration Leadership Forum (CSLF), an organisation through which it is successfully lobbying for CCS technologies.

In October 2009, the Forum, which comprises 23 governments as well as the European Commission, held its latest meeting in London to promote CCS technology “in an effort to stay ahead of the December climate summit in Copenhagen”.

At the conference, Christine Ramon, the chief financial officer of Sasol was on a panel discussion on “the priority and urgency of actions required for near-term deployment of CCS”. This would then be formulated as recommendations to be delivered to the Ministers attending the Forum.

Sasol got what they wanted. At the end of the Forum, the participating Energy and Environment Ministers from the member nations “endorsed CCS technologies as a key component of international plans to combat climate change.”

$100,000s spent lobbying Washington
Meanwhile in the US, Sasol is keen to expand its business and has been an active player in the Coals to Liquids coalition, lobbying Congress on bills promoting “alternative fuels” and securing support from former President George Bush and Senator Barack Obama prior to his election as President.

A 2008 report by GroundWork South Africa summarised the company’s lobbying effort, saying that Sasol “paid the Livingston Group $320,000 last year to lobby Congress to support building CTL plants in the United States. With congressional members and the White House promising to promote alternative fuels, a number of other alternative-fuel companies have joined Sasol in hiring firms to lobby for tax breaks and other incentives to ease their entrance into the market dominated by oil companies.”

In 2009, Sasol paid the lobbying consultancy, the Livingston Group a further $220,000 for lobbying purposes. Through the Livingston Group, Sasol has also sought support from the US military for coal to liquids fuel. With concerns about energy security high on the US agenda, and easy access to large supplies of coal, Sasol has pushed the case for using coal-to-liquid technology to ensure supplies of transport fuel.

Sasol was asked to comment on its nomination for the Angry Mermaid Award but did not respond.



Ten thousand people voted in the Angry Mermaid Award, named after the iconic Copenhagen mermaid who is angry about corporate lobbying on climate change.

Eight candidates were put forward for public vote at www.angrymermaid.org and individuals at the Klimaforum were also invited to vote [2].



Agriculture giant Monsanto was nominated for promoting its genetically modified (GM) crops as a solution to climate change and pushing for its crops to be used as biofuels. The expansion of GM soy in Latin America is contributing to major deforestation and greenhouse gas emissions.

The Round Table on Responsible Soy (RTRS) of which Monsanto is a member, is helping to promote the company's cause by allowing GM soy to be labelled as "responsible". Monsanto also wants GM soy to be funded under the Clean Development Mechanism [3].

Speaking for the award organisers, Paul de Clerk from Friends of the Earth International said: "Monsanto has attracted thousands of votes from individuals who are outraged that such an environmentally-damaging form of agriculture should be put forward to tackle climate change.

"Big business must not be allowed to sabotage action against climate change by promoting their vested interests. All the candidates for the Angry Mermaid Award have lobbied to protect their own profits and prevent effective action to tackle climate change. Governments need to stop listening to them and choose real solutions to the climate crisis."

The Angry Mermaid is organised by Attac Denmark, Corporate Europe Observatory, Focus on the Global South, Friends of the Earth International, Oil Change International and Spinwatch.

***

For more information please contact:
Nina Holland, Corporate Europe Observatory + 45 5268 5295
Paul de Clerk, Friends of the Earth International 32 494 380 959
Dorothy Guerrero, Focus on the Global South +45 5010 8908
Helen Burley, Corporate Europe Observatory, + 45 5399 5927

***

NOTES

[1] Naomi Klein is an award-winning journalist, syndicated columnist and author of the New York Times and #1 international bestseller, The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism.

[2] The eight nominees for the Angry Mermaid Award were:

American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity

American Petroleum Institute (API)

European Chemical Lobby (Cefic)

International Air Transport Association (IATA)

International Emissions Trading Association (IETA)

Monsanto

Sasol

Shell

[3] Monsanto was nominated for lobbying for carbon credits for their RoundupReady crops, which are being grown for agrofuel. RoundupReady soy doesn't need ploughing because it can be heavily sprayed with herbicides. Not ploughing the fields leaves more carbon dioxide in the ground, but the vast spread of soy monocultures in Latin America have caused deforestation, the displacement of people, and massive amounts of toxic weed-killer being used instead.

Monsanto also wants GM soy to be funded under the Clean Development Mechanism which would allow polluting industry in the developed world to offset their emissions by buying credits from GM soy projects. Offsetting is a false solution to climate change and does not lead to emissions reductions in developed countries.

Full details of all the nominations at www.angrymermaid.org

Compressed for internet viewing. Takes a few seconds to load but then works fine. How CropLife tried to stop Michelle Obama from starting Organic Garden at Whitehouse.

The plight of victims of endocrine disrupters (gender benders) is as high as 12% in parts of South Africa.
I am republishing this (first published by me in 2007) because of the renewed distaste for in the new USA Chief Agricultural Negotiator. He is already attempting to lower standards for the use of toxic chemicals in Agriculture.
by Trevor Wells

Fiona Macleod's revealing article ' Evidence of Poison', Mail&Guardian, March 9, and the website Tasmaniatimes quoted in Dr Alison Bleaney's letter of March 16, highlight the fact that the denialist agrochemical industry front, CropLife, is active all over the world creating smoke clouds over the dangers of aerial spraying and other poisons.

They represent the same group of companies who deny global warming. Dr Johan Minnaar produced evidence of serious illnesses and disorders among his patients in Groblersdal, where commercial farmers are spraying large amounts of agrochemicals on crops.

-- Horrific cases include breasts on a five year old girl.
-- Teenage boys temporarily "growing breasts" during spraying seasons.
-- Miscarriages, partial facial paralysis, cancers and ear malfunctions.
-- Milder poisoning symptoms, include asthma, sinusitis, headaches, dizziness and depression.

Professor Leslie London of the University of Cape Town states:-

" premature puberty and other hormonal abnormalities are symptoms of contamination by pesticides containing endocrine disruptors".

He went on to say,

"I think there is a view that if you choose to live in the country, you should accept this as a way of life. "

Patricia Bailey MD reported similar symptoms in Hawai, after the Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) sprayed cannabis crops on the island. As a result of the numerous dead birds, patented glyphosate 'Roundup' was dubbed "Agent Green" because it kills everything it touches.

At first, officials denied that glyphosate had killed the birds, claiming on Hawaiian television station KGMB and in the Hawaii Tribune-Herald that the noise of the low flying helicopters had caused the birds to die of heart attack!

According to Wikipedia,

"The largest single user of Monsanto Roundup, reportedly is the U.S. Government, which sprays huge quantities of the herbicide over the northern countries of South America in an effort to discourage cultivation of the coca plant".

Large areas of land and delicate ecosystems have been laid waste by aerial spraying.

The Biological Weapons Convention (BWC) prohibits all biological warfare, including attacks on crops.

The South African Police Service (SAPS) conducts similar clandestine glyphosate spraying operations on wild cannabis in South Africa. The Senior police spokesperson in charge of the Police Air-Wing, who conduct these clandestine operations confirmed that the Roundup pamphlet informed him "that Roundup is as safe as table salt". The Medical Council and the Univeristy of Kwa-Zulu have linked the high incidence of oesophagael cancer in areas of the former homelands to fungae known to be present in herbicides used in the war against drugs.
For a full expose of the use of crop spraying with deadly herbicides click Agent Green

"Aerial application has been shown in some studies to drift more than 2km, even in the absence of strong winds," said Prof London. Gusts of wind disperse the pesticide even further to outlying communities, where it collects in rainwater catchments. Rooftop catchments are a common source of residents' drinking water in rural areas. Ingestion of glyphosate as a result of this can result in sudden death.

Studies done at the Department of Critical Care Medicine, Changhua Christian Hospital, Taiwan, Republic of China report that Between 1 January 1980, and 30 September 1989, 93 cases of exposure to herbicides containing glyphosphate and surfactant ('Roundup') were treated at Changhua Christian Hospital.
There were seven deaths, all of which occurred within hours of ingestion.

Fiona Mcleod is a strong contender for the South African Breweries Environmental Writers' Award.

-- Farmers' Legal Action Group-South Africa: