Rallyround the Flag

US Citizens Tired of being treated as Mushrooms

noreply@blogger.com (rallyround) — Mon, 13 Oct 2008 22:14:00 +0000

U.S. begins to turn its back on GM crops, report claims
By SEAN POULTER Last updated at 6:38 PM on 13th October 2008
•
America, the cradle of GM crops and food, is turning its back on the controversial technology, it has been claimed.
There is widespread distrust of GM food and a desire for the labelling that would allow people to decide whether to eat it, according to a report from green campaigners.
Research shows that 87per cent of Americans believe their food should carry a label showing whether it contains GM ingredients.

Changing tastes: Research by Soil Association's Lord Peter Melchett - pictured here being arrested for trying to destroy a GM crop - has found that Americans are turning away from GM food
At the same time, some 53 per cent of Americans say they would not choose to eat GM food.
Details emerged as a new alliance of US natural food producers outlined plans for a new labelling scheme to allow thousands of foods to be declared 'GM Free'.
The new report points out how a GM hormone, developed by Monsanto, which is injected into dairy cows to increase milk yields is effectively being killed off by consumer opposition.
Separately, farmers have rejected new GM crops, such as wheat, rice, sweet corn and alfalfa with the result these are not being grown commercially in the USA.
Even GM soya, which is widely grown in the USA, has been shown to be inferior in terms of its yields when compared to new varieties created from conventional cross breeding.
Historically, GM crops have been manipulated in the laboratory to contain a resistance to being sprayed by certain weedkillers, such as Monsanto's RoundUp. The genes are generally inserted into the DNA of the plant using a virus.
Some crops have been altered to contain an insecticide in their leaves and stalks, so killing any insect predators.
Recently, biotech companies, aided by the governments in the USA and Britain, have been touting GM crops as the solution to Third World hunger.
It has been suggested these crops will deliver higher yields or will allow plants to be cultivated in areas of drought or high salt soils.
However, none of these crops exist on a commercial basis despite promises from the biotech industry to deliver them dating back more than ten years.
The latest report is titled 'Land of the GM-Free? - How the American public are starting to turn against GM food.' It is co-authored by the long-term opponent of genetic modification, Lord Peter Melchett, policy director of the organic lobby group, the Soil Association.
The report claims that - to date - US consumers have been kept in the dark about GM and what is in the foods they are eating. It says as people become more aware of the issue, so opposition is growing.
The catalyst has been rejection of milk from cows given Monsanto's genetically engineered bovine growth hormone (BGH).
The report says the EU and Canada have banned use of the drug and any imported dairy products produced from cattle given the injections.
It says: 'Increasing consumer awareness of rBGH in the US has caused sales of the milk to plummet. Between 2002 and 2007 use of the hormone fell by 23 per cent, and the proportion of US cows being injected with rBGH fell from 25per cent to below 17per cent.
'Many major retailers, processors and producers have recently moved to ban rBGH from their products, with Wal-Mart, Safeway, Starbucks, Kraft and many more ensuring that their customers can only buy GM free dairy products for themselves and their families.'
Looking at new GM crops, the report claims: 'Both GM rice and wheat faced such strong opposition from farmers that they never made it out of field trials, and have never been grown commercially in the USA.
'Hardly any GM sweetcorn for human consumption is grown either, for the simple reason that it tastes so bad.'
The new labelling system for 'GM-Free' foods will be launched in the USA next year. Firms will go through a testing regime to prove they are free of GM contamination.
Around 400 companies in the US and Canada have pledged support to the scheme. They have combined annual sales of 12 billion dollars - equivalent to 10per cent of the UK food and drink industry.
In Europe, previously pro-GM countries like France and Germany are no longer supporters. The Republic of Ireland, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales are all committed to GM-free policies.
By contrast, the report says: 'It is just the strongly pro-GM English government that looks increasingly out of touch with what consumers want.'
The former chief of the US Food & Drug Administration's biotech division Henry Miller, has condemned the critics of dairy cow growth hormone as 'kooks' and 'enviro-fanatics'.
In a recent Washington Post article, he said the hormone 'induces the average cow, which produces about 8 gallons of milk each day, to make nearly a gallon more'.
He added: 'Disingenuous activists have unfairly stigmatised a scientifically proven product that has consistently delivered economic and environmental benefits to dairy farmers and consumers.'
CropGen, which speaks for the industry, said: 'Biotech crops are a tool for farmers to increase crop productivity while decreasing the impact on the environment and natural resources.
'Two hundred and nine biotech crops are under cultivation or development in 46 countries around the world.'

Stop Factory Farming!

noreply@blogger.com (rallyround) — Fri, 26 Sep 2008 09:11:00 +0000

Organic farming can feed the world!

noreply@blogger.com (rallyround) — Thu, 28 Aug 2008 12:49:00 +0000

Prof Perfecto : Michigan University

Listen to Prof Perfecto explaining why.

ANN ARBOR, Mich.—Organic farming can yield up to three times as much food on individual farms in developing countries, as low-intensive methods on the same land—according to new findings which refute the long-standing claim that organic farming methods cannot produce enough food to feed the global population.

Researchers from the University of Michigan found that in developed countries, yields were almost equal on organic and conventional farms. In developing countries, food production could double or triple using organic methods, said Ivette Perfecto, professor at U-M's School of Natural Resources and Environment, and one the study's principal investigators. Catherine Badgley, research scientist in the Museum of Paleontology, is a co-author of the paper along with several current and former graduate and undergraduate students from U-M.

"My hope is that we can finally put a nail in the coffin of the idea that you can’t produce enough food through organic agriculture," Perfecto said.

In addition to equal or greater yields, the authors found that those yields could be accomplished using existing quantities of organic fertilizers, without putting more farmland into production.

The idea to undertake an exhaustive review of existing data about yields and nitrogen availability was fueled in a roundabout way, when Perfecto and Badgley were teaching a class about the global food system and visiting farms in Southern Michigan.

"We were struck by how much food the organic farmers would produce," Perfecto said. The researchers set about compiling data from published literature to investigate the two chief objections to organic farming: low yields and lack of organically acceptable nitrogen sources.

Their findings refute those key arguments, Perfecto said, and confirm that organic farming is less environmentally harmful yet can potentially produce more than enough food. This is especially good news for developing countries, where it’s sometimes impossible to deliver food from outside, so farmers must supply their own. Yields in developing countries could increase dramatically by switching to organic farming, Perfecto said.

While that seems counterintuitive, it makes sense because in developing countries, many farmers still do not have the access to the expensive fertilizers and pesticides that farmers use in developed countries to produce those high yields, she said.

After comparing yields of organic and non-organic farms, the researchers looked at nitrogen availability. To do so, they multiplied the current farm land area by the average amount of nitrogen available for production crops if so-called "green manures" were planted between growing seasons. Green manures are cover crops which are plowed into the soil to provide natural soil amendments. They found that planting green manures between growing seasons provided enough nitrogen to replace synthetic fertilizers.

Organic farming is important because conventional agriculture—which involves high-yielding plants, mechanized tillage, synthetic fertilizers and biocides—is so detrimental to the environment, Perfecto said. For instance, fertilizer runoff from conventional agriculture is the chief culprit in creating dead zones—low oxygen areas where marine life cannot survive. Proponents of organic farming argue that conventional farming also causes soil erosion, greenhouse gas emission, increased pest resistance and loss of biodiversity.

For their analysis, researchers defined the term organic as: practices referred to as sustainable or ecological; that utilize non-synthetic nutrient cycling processes; that exclude or rarely use synthetic pesticides; and sustain or regenerate the soil quality.

Perfecto said the idea that people would go hungry if farming went organic is "ridiculous."

"Corporate interest in agriculture and the way agriculture research has been conducted in land grant institutions, with a lot of influence by the chemical companies and pesticide companies as well as fertilizer companies—all have been playing an important role in convincing the public that you need to have these inputs to produce food," she said.

Prince Charles predicts GM environmental disaster

noreply@blogger.com (rallyround) — Thu, 14 Aug 2008 13:34:00 +0000

Please wait for video player to load

France Responds to US Threat of Retaliation on GMO's

noreply@blogger.com (rallyround) — Wed, 16 Jan 2008 21:47:00 +0000

We may be small but we are many

USA threatens retaliation against EU GMO ban

noreply@blogger.com (rallyround) — Tue, 15 Jan 2008 21:35:00 +0000

By Trevor Wells
Farmers Legal Action Group-South Africa

Listen to Make a Difference by Tucan-Tucan

Two days after French President Nicolas Sarkozy said he would join other EU countries in banning Monsanto's MON 810, genetically modified (GM) maize. the U.S. announced it will "retaliate" (sic) with trade sanctions unless European Union countries reverse bans on planting genetically modified crops. (Wall Street Journal, Tuesday 15th January 2008).

On 17th December 2007 Monsanto was found guilty of contempt of the South African Advertising Authority (ASA) for publishing false claims about the safety of GM foods.

In January,2007, Monsanto was fined 15,000 euros (US$19,000 ) 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.

In 2006 Monsanto suppressed evidence of serious damage to the liver and kidneys of rats in their MON 863 GM maize trials until ordered to release this evidence by a German Court.

In June, 2007, a second peer-reviewed case involving another variation of Monsanto's GM maize, namely, NK 603, 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 NK 603 GMO corn (marketed commercially under the name Round-up Ready).

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 diminished brain size sent out an urgent danger warning for growing children fed GM food.

Falsified GM food safety claims rejected by South Africa

noreply@blogger.com (rallyround) — Wed, 02 Jan 2008 14:57:00 +0000

Listen to Sizani by Tucan-Tucan

By 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.

The Story of Stuff Teaser #2

noreply@blogger.com (rallyround) — Mon, 31 Dec 2007 15:27:00 +0000

85% of world food owned by 5 companies!!

noreply@blogger.com (rallyround) — Tue, 25 Dec 2007 19:57:00 +0000

The Story of Stuff Teaser #1

noreply@blogger.com (rallyround) — Mon, 17 Dec 2007 20:18:00 +0000

Africabioland

noreply@blogger.com (rallyround) — Sun, 18 Nov 2007 19:12:00 +0000

Already we have Kudu bulls with calcified balls as a result of the activities of the agrochemical and mining industries.

International discontent grows for South African Court decision

noreply@blogger.com (rallyround) — Fri, 16 Nov 2007 23:30:00 +0000

Debre Zeit
ETHIOPIA
A group of seed savers, farmers, CSOs and NGOs, representing 40
organisations from 18 countries, from Africa, Europe, Asia and Latin
America, gathered in Debre Zeit, Ethiopia for the meeting: "From Seed
Security to Seed Sovereignty", between 5 and 12 November 2007, we want to
express our concern about the injustice Biowatch South Africa has to face.

Biowatch South Africa asked the SA government for access to information on
GMOs after they realized it was introduced in South Africa in a secretive
and untransparent manner. This was their Constitutional Right. The
government refused to give them any information and they were compelled to
go to court.

Monsanto, a multinational company known for its abuse of human rights and
environmental rights across the world, and one of the biggest GMO companies,
opposed Biowatch's right to information. The court awarded Biowatch the
right to most of the information it requested, and ruled that it was in the public interests to supply the information. The Court however ordered Biowatch to pay
Monsanto's legal cost.

. We concur that Biowatch South Africa acted on behalf of the people of
South Africa, and we believe their right to information should be upheld.

. We also consider that the GMO companies use South Africa as the gateway
for GMOs to the rest of Africa and therefore feel that Biowatch South Africa
acted on behalf of the whole of Africa.

. For this reason we are outraged at the court's judgement that Biowatch
should pay Monsanto's legal cost.

. We reject this disregard of the basic human right to information, to a
safe environment, to safe food, and the right to assert these human rights
in the courts without facing astronomical legal bills.

. We are deeply concerned that this infringement of the right of ordinary
people to know what they eat and what grows in their fields, will not only
impact on South Africa, but also affect the whole of Africa. It will
embolden the multinationals to impose and push their invasive technologies
on Africa, but it will also have a chilling effect on ordinary people trying
to defend their rights.

. We appeal to the people of South Africa and the rest of Africa to support
Biowatch in this challenging time.

. Finally, we appeal to the South African courts to reconsider this poor
judgement, and relieve Biowatch from paying Monsanto's legal costs.
Signed on this day, 11 November 2007 at Debre Zeit, Ethiopia.

God Blamed for $1,2 billion Contamination Damage

noreply@blogger.com (rallyround) — Sat, 10 Nov 2007 17:51:00 +0000

In 1874 C.R. Alder Wright tried to create a non-addictive form of opium. He invented diacetylmorphine but abandoned the drug because it was more addictive than opium.
Bayer then marketed diacetylmorphine as a colic remedy for crying babies and coughs under the brand name Heroin. Bayer now blames God for GM contamination,

GREENPEACE INTERNATIONAL— When an unapproved genetically modified (GM) crop was discovered in American rice last year, it triggered the biggest marketing and financial disaster in the history of the US rice industry. Greenpeace commissioned an independent economist to do some maths; he found that total costs could exceed USD$1.2 billion.

In August 2006, traces of the uncertified GM crop LL601, known as “Liberty Link” and owned by biotech giant Bayer were found in US rice supplies. 63 percent of US rice exports were affected, the contamination spread to at least 30 countries, from Austria to Ghana to United Arab Emirates. Major importers such as the EU and the Philippines closed their markets to US rice. Up to US $253 million was lost from food product recalls, and future export losses could reach $445 million.

Contamination came from field trials

What is particularly scary is that Liberty Link was never even grown commercially. The contamination was the result of experimental trials, which ended in 2001 - five years before the contamination was discovered. In a desperate attempt to lessen the damage after the scandal broke, the US government decided to approve the rice strain. It didn’t work; as the report shows, the US rice industry is still reeling.

India, an even bigger rice exporter than the US, is the new battleground for GM crops. The Indian government is preparing to start field trials next month. Greenpeace urges them not to make the same mistakes as the US, and to stop all plans for GM experimental trials. Greenpeace India took action with the Bharatiya Kisan Farmers Union today. They visited one of the 12 areas approved for GM rice trials, and with a giant banner reading “Save our Rice” sent the Indian government a clear message.

As Greenpeace GM campaigner Doreen Stabinsky says: “There is only one way for the rice industry to protect itself from another billion dollar debacle and that is to prevent GE rice from ever being grown.”

Bayer attempts to blame God

Hundreds of US farmers and European businesses have filed lawsuits against Bayer in attempts to recoup their losses. Punitive or statutory damages which may be awarded against Bayer may double or even treble the final cost of the GM contamination incident.

Bayer’s response to the disaster, which has destroyed the livelihoods of thousands of people, from growers to producers to sellers, was to blame God. Seriously, they claimed that the contamination scandal was probably caused by “an Act of God.” Even by biotech industry standards, this is beyond grotesque.

India, don’t make the same mistakes as the US

In India, the pro-GM government, its regulators and companies such as Monsanto are preparing to start field trials of damaging GM crops next month. The decision ignores the will of farmers and traders and even the Indian Supreme court, which ruled in August that no new field trial approvals could happen until a full court hearing takes place.

The decision also threatens the Indian basmati rice industry, which is committed to remaining GM free. Many of the planned GM field trials will take place right next to where basmati is grown, and as genes do not understand political boundaries basmati and non-basmati rice types will face serious danger of contamination.

If their rice gets contaminated, it is Indian farmers, traders and millers whose livelihoods could be destroyed. India and the rest of the world must learn the lessons from the US disaster. The only way to ensure crops are safe from contamination is to ensure that GM crops do not exist at all.

Harry Potter goes to Monsanto Land

noreply@blogger.com (rallyround) — Sun, 28 Oct 2007 19:16:00 +0000

100 million Americans can't be wrong- eat GM food!!

noreply@blogger.com (rallyround) — Thu, 25 Oct 2007 06:47:00 +0000

Polar Bears

noreply@blogger.com (rallyround) — Sun, 30 Sep 2007 12:44:00 +0000

Sgt Shumba on Patrol

noreply@blogger.com (rallyround) — Sun, 30 Sep 2007 08:40:00 +0000

Thanks to Megan's Cellphone!

Rallyround the Flag: Wonderful World shadow puppet

noreply@blogger.com (rallyround) — Mon, 24 Sep 2007 19:53:00 +0000

Rallyround the Flag: Wonderful World shadow puppet

Wonderful World shadow puppet

noreply@blogger.com (rallyround) — Mon, 24 Sep 2007 07:27:00 +0000

This is really good

Rallyround the Flag: Attorney General orders Monsanto to reveal secrets

noreply@blogger.com (rallyround) — Sun, 16 Sep 2007 13:06:00 +0000

Rallyround the Flag: Attorney General orders Monsanto to reveal secrets

Attorney General orders Monsanto to reveal secrets

noreply@blogger.com (rallyround) — Sun, 16 Sep 2007 10:21:00 +0000

By Trevor Wells
Farmers' Legal Action Group-South Africa

According to The Associated Press, September 13, 2007, The Iowa State Attorney General has ordered GM seed manufacturer Monsanto to provide full information on it's seed trait, chemical and it's licensing and marketing programs.
Monsanto has consistently withheld information from the public and was recently ordered by a South African Court to disclose information on it's seed traits in the public interest.
In Germany, Monsanto had suppressed the evidence of serious damage to the liver and kidneys of rats in their own GM MON863 maize trials until ordered to release this evidence by a German Court.
In July, 2007, Monsanto told the South African Advertising Standards Authority that MON863 was not their product and was ordered by Judge King to withdraw an advert that claimed that in food tests "No negative reactions have ever been reported. "

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.

Wind blown herbicide resistant canola seed sprouts in wheat fields miles away.

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 year, 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.

In response to the Iowa Attorney General's demand Monsanto's press release said, "Farmers buy seed each year based on the yield and value brought to their farms at harvest which has resulted in rapid and broad adoption of biotech seed products."
Farmers and the public should be informed that there is no seed which contains a GM trait that increases yield potential. Yield potential has been developed by farmers and seed breeders who have selectively bred for the trait of yield potential by conventional means. Area specific heritage seeds with desired traits are adulterated with the patented GM herbicide or larvae resistant gene and then sold at a premium to the very farmers that had developed these desired heritage traits over several generations of selective breeding. They are paying a heavy penalty for so called research when in fact all they are paying for is the insertion of a single patented gene in crops which they themselves have developed over generations.
The GM crops which are commercially available contain a trait which makes the plant resistant to the seed producers brand of herbicide and another gene from a bacteria which constantly exudes a poisonous toxin which is limited to killing insect larvae (worms).
Both insect larvae and weeds can be effectively controlled by other methods. These methods are more cost effective and environmentally friendly when Full Cost Accounting as defined by the ISO14040 Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) standards 'based on an assessment of the full economic, social and environmental costs are taking into account.
Farmers using GM seeds should also be aware that the technology agreements which they sign with the owner of the patented gene prescribes that they have to have gene fences and refuges failing which the seed company will hold them fully liable for any contamination of their neighbour's non-GM crops.

Rallyround the Flag: South African Authorities Reject Israeli GM poison.

noreply@blogger.com (rallyround) — Thu, 16 Aug 2007 22:43:00 +0000

Rallyround the Flag: South African Authorities Reject Israeli GM poison.

South African Authorities Reject Israeli GM poison.

noreply@blogger.com (rallyround) — Thu, 16 Aug 2007 20:21:00 +0000

The Farmers' Legal Action Group-South Africa welcomes the announcement today by the African Centre for Biosafety that the Executive Council acting under the Genetically Modified Organisms Act has rejected an application by Biological Control Products SA (Pty) Ltd, to test a genetically modified mosquitocide developed by the Ben Gurion University.
Scientific experts conclude that experience has shown that mosquitocides typically cause more long-term problems than they solve. Mosquitoes always develop resistance, enabling them to multiply in ever-larger numbers in a losing battle known in scientific circles as "the pesticide treadmill." The use of bats, fish frogs and other natural predators is considered the safer option. A single bat can consume 3000 mosquitoes in one night. Horse farmers have also found bats useful for preventing horse sickness caused by flying insects.

The mosquitocide contains the controversial Monsanto patented npt11 antibiotic resistant gene which the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) has been supporting. Anti-biotic marker genes were supposed to have been phased out in terms of European Union Directive 2001/18EC and Revising Directive 90/220/CEE.
The EFSA claims, against all medical and veterinary evidence, that this water soluble antibiotic is insignificant.
More recently the EFSA supported Monsanto in concealing safety studies from public scrutiny until a German Court Order finally forced Monsanto to release the full report on rats which suffered liver damage eating Monsanto's MON863 GM maize.
The EFSA has been severely criticised by the European Veterinary and Medical Council for downplaying the role of Monsanto's patented anti-biotic resistant marker gene npt11. This gene is resistant to the water soluble antibiotic aminoglycide commonly known as the terramycin, neomycin. streptomycin etc. (All the mycins) It is therefore used extensively in aquaculture, ostrich, quail, pigeon, rabbit, chick, piglet and calve rearing industries.

Monsanto have been using this gene in a number of products including the highly controversial GM potato which was banned in Egypt and moved to South Africa for testing.
The controversy about the GM Potato started in Egypt when researchers (Toxins Volume 6, Issue 6, 1998. Pages: 219-233) found that GM potatoes caused damage to part of the small intestine in rats.

Rallyround the Flag: Australians question Monsanto Lies

noreply@blogger.com (rallyround) — Wed, 15 Aug 2007 19:10:00 +0000

Rallyround the Flag: Australians question Monsanto Lies

noreply@blogger.com (rallyround) — Wed, 15 Aug 2007 19:10:00 +0000

Rallyround the Flag: Australians question Monsanto Lies