+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1 2 4 LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 74

Thread: Monsanto Losing Grounds

  1. Link to Post #21
    France Administrator Hervé's Avatar
    Join Date
    7th March 2011
    Location
    Brittany
    Posts
    16,766
    Thanks
    60,316
    Thanked 95,057 times in 15,475 posts

    Default Re: Monsanto Losing Grounds

    All right, folks,

    This thread is about Monsanto and affiliated loosing ground...

    ... for GMO and associated chemicals and their effects on other organisms, there is this other thread:


    ... or any other of your choice.

    Thank you for your contribution...

    ... but... please...



    ... so that this PA Forum keeps some semblance of consistency in topics.
    "La réalité est un rêve que l'on fait atterrir" San Antonio AKA F. Dard

    Troll-hood motto: Never, ever, however, whatsoever, to anyone, a point concede.

  2. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Hervé For This Post:

    TelosianEmbrace (8th January 2016), Wide-Eyed (2nd March 2016), william r sanford72 (27th August 2014)

  3. Link to Post #22
    Avalon Member Omni's Avatar
    Join Date
    1st February 2011
    Location
    Pacific NW
    Posts
    3,814
    Thanks
    12,541
    Thanked 22,299 times in 3,448 posts

    Default Re: Monsanto Losing Grounds

    I have been wanting to send a bunch of emails to companies that use corn products asking if they use roundup rdy corn. And telling them I am boycotting their product until it changes if they do use it(hitting up frito lay first). I suggest others do the same!!! If we hit them in their wallet, that is what makes corporations make 'ethical' decisions. lol

  4. The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to Omni For This Post:

    DeDukshyn (30th June 2015), drneglector (12th March 2016), Hervé (28th August 2014), Inaiá (22nd October 2015), Wide-Eyed (2nd March 2016), william r sanford72 (14th October 2015)

  5. Link to Post #23
    France Administrator Hervé's Avatar
    Join Date
    7th March 2011
    Location
    Brittany
    Posts
    16,766
    Thanks
    60,316
    Thanked 95,057 times in 15,475 posts

    Default Re: Monsanto Losing Grounds


    Mexico bans Monsanto from planting GMO soybeans


    Wednesday, August 20, 2014 by: J. D. Heyes
    Tags: GMO soybeans, Monsanto, Mexico



    (NaturalNews) A Mexican judge in a federal district court in Yucatan state has recently overturned a permit issued to Monsanto, the America-based multinational mega-ag giant corporation that has long been the leading developer and supplier of genetically modified (GM) crops.

    Devon G. Pena, writing for Environmental and Food Justice, said that the permit, which was issued by the Mexican Secretariat of Agriculture, Livestock, Rural Development, Fisheries and Food on June 6, 2012, "allowed the commercial planting of GM soy bean in Yucatan."

    The recent court reversal was based on consideration of scientific evidence that demonstrated (to the satisfaction of the judge) that GM soy crop plantings are a threat to Mexican honey production in the states of Yucatan, Campeche and Quintana Roo.

    As reported by Pena:

    Quote An op-ed piece appearing in [a recent issue of]La Jornada (July 23), applauded the decision with insightful commentary suggesting that the federal agencies involved in this dispute are guilty of corruption and collusion with the transnational Gene Giant.
    'The court is agreeing with scientists, farmers'
    According to the paper, the permits that were revoked by court order, had been issued by SAGARPA, which is Mexico's agriculture ministry, as well as SEMARNAT, which is Mexico's environmental protection agency, despite longstanding objections by the country's own top environmental institutions -- the Mexican National Commission for the Knowledge and Use of Biodiversity, National Commission of Natural Protected Areas, and the National Institute of Ecology.

    As Pena reported earlier this year, on March 16, the federal permit approval also came despite objections from several hundred scientific research scholars who are associated with Mexico's Union of Concerned Scientists Committed to Society. Reporting further, the Pena said that, at the very heart of the Mexican court ruling is an all-important conclusion that co-existence of GMOs and other living things is not really possible:

    Quote The court is in effect agreeing with scientists, farmers, beekeepers, and indigenous communities that Monsanto GM soy and honey production are incompatible.
    According to La Jornada, the scientific concerns are complemented by economic factors: "[T]he aforementioned permit runs the severe risk of undermining the marketing of honey produced in these states and destined for the European market."

    Data cited in the ruling noted that 85 percent of Mexican honey is exported to European Union (EU) markets, and the Court of Justice of the EU already prohibits (as of 2011) the sale of honey containing pollen from GM crops.

    'Setback for Mexican agencies'
    The editorial in La Jornada further said, according to Pena, "Taken together, these elements make this judicial determination of particular importance: This is a setback to the major transnational corporation involved with the production and marketing of genetically modified foods, whose presence in our country has grown in recent years, and is an extremely valuable victory for peasant farmer, indigenous, environmental, and scientific organizations that are opposed to these crops because they constitute a risk factor for the health and nutrition of populations and biodiversity."

    The court's ruling is a setback for Mexican federal agencies that continue to exhibit "clearly inappropriate and irresponsible" attitudes that border on complicity with multinational corporate interests and against national interests in Mexico, Pena said, adding that the government of Mexico -- though a signatory to the Convention on Biological Diversity and the Cartagena Biosafety Protocols -- has not taken the responsible approach being followed across much of Europe.

    Rather, the Mexican government is failing to respect its various treaty obligations as its agriculture and environmental protection ministries bypass guarantees "owed native communities -- such as the right to be consulted on operations of individuals that affect their territories, and leaving them to their fate in legal battles against... powerful multinationals," the op-ed said.

    It wasn't clear if Monsanto planned to appeal the ruling.


    Sources:

    http://www.cornucopia.org

    http://www.jornada.unam.mx

    http://www.naturalnews.com

    http://ejfood.blogspot.com
    Last edited by Hervé; 28th August 2014 at 10:02.
    "La réalité est un rêve que l'on fait atterrir" San Antonio AKA F. Dard

    Troll-hood motto: Never, ever, however, whatsoever, to anyone, a point concede.

  6. The Following 11 Users Say Thank You to Hervé For This Post:

    Daphne (28th August 2014), Daughter of Time (8th September 2014), DeDukshyn (30th June 2015), drneglector (12th March 2016), East Sun (6th January 2016), Inaiá (22nd October 2015), meeradas (6th November 2014), Omni (28th August 2014), TelosianEmbrace (8th January 2016), Wide-Eyed (2nd March 2016), william r sanford72 (14th October 2015)

  7. Link to Post #24
    United States Unsubscribed
    Join Date
    2nd December 2013
    Location
    Massachusetts
    Posts
    261
    Thanks
    509
    Thanked 745 times in 208 posts

    Default Re: Monsanto Losing Grounds

    Quote Posted by Omniverse (here)
    I have been wanting to send a bunch of emails to companies that use corn products asking if they use roundup rdy corn. And telling them I am boycotting their product until it changes if they do use it(hitting up frito lay first). I suggest others do the same!!! If we hit them in their wallet, that is what makes corporations make 'ethical' decisions. lol
    Agreed, and this is why Ben and Jerry's ice cream's decision to remove all GMO ingredients is so important as well. I think at some point companies will be in the position of asking themselves "do we want to be the LAST company to remove the GMOs? Or a trailblazer like Ben and Jerry's".

    Or this is my hope.

  8. Link to Post #25
    United States Avalon Member onawah's Avatar
    Join Date
    28th March 2010
    Posts
    11,151
    Thanks
    27,086
    Thanked 47,706 times in 9,722 posts

    Default Re: Monsanto Losing Grounds

    How Monsanto Annihilated a Paradise
    THE MIND UNLEASHED on 7 September, 2014
    http://themindunleashed.org/2014/09/...and-death.html


    Quote Death has come to the beautiful island of Molokai, long considered an “old Hawaiian” paradise complete with waterfalls, lush rainforests and sprawling hills. It came in the form of a mighty Trojan Horse promising jobs and prosperity to the island’s small population of 7,500. Image credit: occupy-monsanto.com

    The exquisite island has become a laboratory and the islanders are being treated like lab rats.

    Monsanto has set up shop, shrouded by fences and no trespassing signs. Almost 2,000 acres of Molokai’s paradise has been taken over by the biotech titan’s Bt corn crops. These patented genes produce a substance that prevents and destroys pests. The Bt toxin is engineered into corn crops, allowing farmers to control pests without spraying as many pesticides.

    When the pesticides are sprayed, workers wear head to toe protective gear, including respirators. Nearby residents are not provided with such equipment and have no option but to breathe in the toxic dust that comes from the fields.

    The State Health Department has said that there is no proof this is dangerous to the people of Hawaii or any place where they’ve been tested.


    The island’s residents disagree and tell a very different story, one similar to that of the people of India or the farmers of Argentina. Monsanto strikes again, invading and damaging people and the environment with its glyphosate toxicity.

    The proof is in the people. The people of Molokai have become sicker and sicker, stricken with diseases like asthma, diabetes and cancer. These are all side effects of pesticide exposure. The dots are being connected.

    However, the State Department sides with biotech executives and claim that there is no problem with the extreme pesticide use. Coincidentally, statistics for cancer, miscarriage, birth defects, respiratory problems and neurological issues on the island are not easily found.

    “As the acute toxicity – reflected in the WHO classification of glyphosate is low, it has long been promoted as safe. However, recent evidence shows substantial adverse health and environmental effects, especially of the formulated products.

    The marketed formulations of glyphosate, such as Roundup, contain adjuvants (accessory chemicals), usually 50-60 percent, added to enable the active ingredient to work more effectively. There is mounting evidence that the adjuvants are more toxic than glyphosate and/or potentiate its toxic effects. Publicly available information about the nature of these chemicals is incomplete because adjuvants are treated as proprietary secrets by the manufacturer. One major known agent used e.g. in Roundup is ‘POEA’.

    Although glyphosate itself shows low acute toxicity, serious poising effects such as severe eye irritation and injury, skin and respiratory problems, and damage to lung tissue have been recorded with formulated products – probably due to the presence of POEA. Farm workers exposed to Roundup, e.g. by eye rubbing, has been reported to “have caused swelling of eye and lid, rapid heartbeat and elevated blood pressure. Other reported effects of POEA are: vomiting, diarrhea, hemolysis (destruction of red blood cells), altered mental status, and pulmonary edema; ingestion can cause in addition pharyngitis, abdominal pain, liver and renal damage, and erosions of the esophagus, oropharynx, and stomach.

    Recent experiences and studies show a wide range of long-term adverse health effects, again mostly related to formulated products, such as leukemia and other cancers, skin diseases, and birth defects, gastrointestinal problems, and alterations to the central nervous system. Other findings link glyphosate and especially formulations with affecting embryo development, damage cells and DNA, and interrupting the hormone system. In addition, POEA contains dioxin, which causes cancer and damage to the liver and kidneys in humans. A new study found adverse effects of four glyphosate-based herbicides on human embryonic, placental and umbilical cord cells at dilution levels far below agricultural recommendations, corresponding to low levels of residues in food or feed.”

    This is not an experiment in some distant land. This is happening right now, on American soil. Today, an American has no choice but to breathe in air with a toxic particle that may go rogue when it enters the body, resulting in cancers, miscarriages, infertility, or some other illness. That particle is created or released intentionally by Monsanto. There is no way to contain things like pollen or chemical sprays. Those who live downwind of these fields are helpless to avoid the poison being released into the air and into the groundwater.

    Americans are crying out for help, but the politicians refuse to listen. The desperate pleas go unheard because of insidious collusion – in the government, in the media, and in the biotech industry. No one wants to believe that in this day and age, someone wouldn’t stop Monsanto.

    Monsanto writes its own laws as is evident with the passing of the Monsanto Protection Act. There is a revolving door between Monsanto, Washington D.C., the FDA and the USDA, not to mention connections with the Supreme Court. There is a blatant money trail between Monsanto and many of the lawmakers in D.C. Other countries’ governments have said no to Monsanto, but the US does not. The US government is in clear collusion with the biotech industry, and they don’t even try to hide it.

    It’s not too late to stand up to biotech bullies. The government and safety agencies, such as the FDA, won’t protect its citizens so it’s up to us to be proactive and take a stand. Join the global March Against Monsanto happening May of next year. Boycott GMOs and glyphosate pesticides. Plant your own food or shop from a local farmer. Educate those you know and encourage them to do the same.

    Many will read this and be incredulous, doubtful that such a thing could go on here in America. But it is happening. Today, it’s Hawaii. Tomorrow, it might be in the field near you and your children.

    Sources:

    The Organic Prepper

    The Molokai News

    Nation of Change

    Natural Revolution

    Image courtesy: Running The Country

    Credits: Written by Tami Canal, The Anti-Media. Used with permission.

    This article is free and open source. Feel free to republish this article in p[art or in full with credit to the author and a link back to this page.
    Each breath a gift...
    _____________

  9. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to onawah For This Post:

    bruno dante (8th September 2014), Hervé (5th November 2014), meeradas (6th November 2014), william r sanford72 (14th October 2015)

  10. Link to Post #26
    France Administrator Hervé's Avatar
    Join Date
    7th March 2011
    Location
    Brittany
    Posts
    16,766
    Thanks
    60,316
    Thanked 95,057 times in 15,475 posts

    Default Re: Monsanto Losing Grounds

    Hawaiians Win Community GMO Victory Over Monsanto

    GMO bans pass in counties in Hawaii and California, while millions in industry spending drown out labeling efforts in Colorado

    by Lauren McCauley, staff writer


    Maui residents in late October protested Monsanto's heavy pesticide use. (Photo: Babes Against Biotech/ Facebook)

    Residents of Maui County in Hawaii, frequently referred to as 'GMO Ground Zero,' claimed a victory Tuesday evening when a measure to ban the planting of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) passed with 50.2 percent.

    Agribusiness giants Monsanto and Dow AgroSciences, which for decades have run enormous growing and testing operations on the island, spent nearly $8 million dollars to defeat the ban, making it the most expensive campaign in Hawaii's history, according to Honolulu Civil Beat.

    Known as the Maui County Genetically Modified Organism Moratorium Initiative, the measure will ban all GMO growth, testing or cultivation in the county until an environmental and public health study is conducted and finds the proposed cultivation practices to be safe and harmless.

    "I think that this is a really strong message to the entire agrochemical industry in the state of Hawaii that we are no longer going to sit idly by and watch them expand their operations without the kinds of regulations that ensure the health and safety of people across Hawaii," Ashley Lukens, who directs the Hawaii chapter of the Center for Food Safety, told Civil Beat.

    Hawaiians have become increasingly concerned over GMO crop production and how its associated heavy pesticide use impacts the health of both people and environment. Over 80 different chemicals are sprayed on GMO fields, which ban proponents warn, creates billions of untested chemical combinations which then spread into "our neighborhoods, oceans, reefs, groundwater, drinking water, food supply and bodies."

    Last year, the Hawaiian Department of Health tested the surface water around the island and pesticides were found in 100 percent of the samples. According to official election results, the moratorium passed with just over 1,000 votes. In comparison to the millions raised in industry dollars by ban opposition group Citizens Against the Maui County Farming Ban (CAMCFB), supporters of the initiative raised just under $65,000.

    Quote "It's only a matter of time before no amount of spending by Monsanto and Pepsi will be able to suppress the evidence against our industrial model of toxic monoculture crops."
    —Katherine Paul, Organic Consumers Association
    A GMO ban also passed in the community of Humboldt County, California on Tuesday, marking the third county in California to pass such a prohibition. Efforts to mandate the labeling of GMOs faced a windfall in outside, industry spending in both Colorado in Oregon. In Colorado—where corporate contributions lead by Monsanto and DuPont Pioneer topped $16 million—the measure lost 66.78 to 33.22 percent.

    Oregon Measure 92 also lost by a slim margin, 51 to 49 percent. Multinational food and agriculture companies such as PepsiCo and Monsanto poured over $18 million into that race, shattering previous election spending records.

    Organic food advocates say that the huge number of people who did back the labeling measures, despite industry-led misinformation campaigns, made it "clear that the GMO labeling movement is growing stronger with each of these initiatives."

    As Katherine Paul, communications coordinator for the Organic Consumers Association, told Common Dreams:
    Quote "Change doesn't happen overnight. But as we've seen with other movements (women's right to vote, gay marriage) over time, the will of the people ultimately overcomes the opposition—even opponents like Monsanto that can, and do, spend millions to protect corporate power."
    "The science is on our side," Paul continued, noting that in addition to the impacts from the countless toxic chemical combinations, GMO crops have also been linked to numerous chronic illnesses.
    Quote "It's only a matter of time before no amount of spending by Monsanto and Pepsi will be able to suppress the evidence against our industrial model of toxic monoculture crops."
    This headline was updated at 2:40 EST to reflect final vote tallies.
    "La réalité est un rêve que l'on fait atterrir" San Antonio AKA F. Dard

    Troll-hood motto: Never, ever, however, whatsoever, to anyone, a point concede.

  11. The Following 12 Users Say Thank You to Hervé For This Post:

    3(C)+me (30th June 2015), animovado (5th November 2014), Calz (6th November 2014), DeDukshyn (30th June 2015), drneglector (12th March 2016), maurice (6th November 2014), meeradas (6th November 2014), Omni (6th November 2014), onawah (6th November 2014), TelosianEmbrace (8th January 2016), ulli (6th November 2014), william r sanford72 (14th October 2015)

  12. Link to Post #27
    Australia Unsubscribed
    Join Date
    26th October 2014
    Posts
    276
    Thanks
    144
    Thanked 2,748 times in 261 posts

    Default Re: Monsanto Losing Grounds

    Yes , result ! My faith in humanity just got rebooted .

  13. Link to Post #28
    France Administrator Hervé's Avatar
    Join Date
    7th March 2011
    Location
    Brittany
    Posts
    16,766
    Thanks
    60,316
    Thanked 95,057 times in 15,475 posts

    Default Re: Monsanto Losing Grounds

    France bans the sale of glyphosate

    Tuesday, June 30, 2015 by: Kristina Martin
    Tags: french legislation, glyphosate ban, Monsanto GMOs


    (NaturalNews)
    France is the latest country to ban the private sale of Monsanto's favorite carcinogen - glyphosate. France has been in the alternative news quite a bit lately, asking the makers of Nutella to stop using palm oil, insisting all new rooftops be covered in solar panels or plants, and mandating the donation of all supermarket food waste. This new move by their Ecology Minister is the latest result of their forward thinking.

    The French aren't the only people around the world waking up to the effects of Roundup. Governments are now more likely to look for independent research to explain the uptick in the rates of diseases like cancer. Monsanto continues to bleat about the safety of glyphosates and their inability to harm humans, claiming that "the dose makes the poison." With the levels of glyphosates on the rise in our food, our soil, our air, and water, at what magic point does the saturation of our environment turn from harmful to poison? Are we willing to wait until that switch has been flipped with no hope of going back?

    The List of Governments Waking Up Keeps Growing
    The fight against GMOs and Monsanto has made waves the world over, and as the United States deals with a food system where 80 percent of products now likely contain GMOs, Europe continues their crackdown against the damage caused by Monsanto and all of their products. While most of the focus has been on Monsanto crops, the tremendously influential study from the International Agency for Research on Cancer has caused many to consider banning all of their products. The Netherlands, Bermuda, and Sri Lanka preceded France in banning over the counter sales of Roundup. It is worth noting that Bermuda and Sri Lanka have prohibited the use of glyphosates in all applications, including commercial ones, unlike the Dutch and the French.

    Monsanto Maintains the Same Response as Always
    It's business as usual for the PR department of Monsanto, as they continue to refine their denial skills. Glyphosate was introduced as Roundup in the 1970s, and in that time it has expanded to become the most produced weed killer is the world. As Monsanto is a company willing to throw their financial weight around, it's been easy for government institutions to look the other way, and it was easy to keep the public in the dark before the Internet. In 1985, the Environmental Protection Agency listed glyphosate as a possible carcinogen. Six years later the memo had been changed, despite several scientists supporting the original classification. With it officially listed as a 2A carcinogen, it's become more difficult to accept Monsanto's manipulation in the face of growing public outrage.

    Monsanto's variations on the theme that "glyphosate is non-toxic" are endless. They frequently argue that studies that find any fault with their products ignore important information. Some statements have referred to Roundup as low risk to human health, but that has been the extent of any admission of guilt.

    It's time to acknowledge that Monsanto is an irresponsible corporation with enough money, power, and manipulation to sway government agencies. Nothing will change until the public steps up and says, "Enough!" The tipping point is near – that point at which our planet is too saturated with environmental disruptors. Groups like Occupy Monsanto and March Against Monsanto are great place to start if we are ready to step up and heal our environment.

    It is also important to address personal exposure to Monsanto's toxic products. See how to detoxify from GMOs, and check out the first two sources for more on GMOs and your health.


    Sources:
    http://www.organiclifestylemagazine.com

    http://www.organiclifestylemagazine.com

    http://inhabitat.com

    http://www.independent.co.uk

    http://www.naturalnews.com

    http://www.collective-evolution.com

    http://www.truthwiki.org/The_Green_R...-_Agriculture/

    http://www.truthwiki.org/seeds_of_de..._lies_of_gmos/


    About the author:
    Kristina works at Green Lifestyle Market. A few years ago Kristina was no stranger to illness, but she decided to pursue health and vitality through natural means when she became pregnant. She quickly learned that she could prevent morning sickness and other common ailments other pregnant woman experienced with the right diet. After a healthy home birth, and a beautiful child, she never looked back. Kristina has not had so much as a cold since, and at two years old and unvaccinated, neither has her child. She's passionate about natural health, environmental conservation, and raising her healthy baby without pharmaceuticals.
    "La réalité est un rêve que l'on fait atterrir" San Antonio AKA F. Dard

    Troll-hood motto: Never, ever, however, whatsoever, to anyone, a point concede.

  14. The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to Hervé For This Post:

    DeDukshyn (30th June 2015), Inaiá (22nd October 2015), Omni (1st July 2015), TelosianEmbrace (8th January 2016), william r sanford72 (14th October 2015)

  15. Link to Post #29
    France Administrator Hervé's Avatar
    Join Date
    7th March 2011
    Location
    Brittany
    Posts
    16,766
    Thanks
    60,316
    Thanked 95,057 times in 15,475 posts

    Default Re: Monsanto Losing Grounds

    Opt-Outs Abound as Majority of EU Says No to GMOs

    15 out of 28 European Union member states declare their intention to send territorial exclusionary requests to agrochem companies

    by Nadia Prupis, staff writer




    The majority of EU governments are "rejecting the Commission's drive for GM crop approvals," Greenpeace EU said. (Photo: European Parliament/flickr/cc)



    On the eve of the European Union's deadline for member states and territories to declare their stance on allowing or banning genetically modified (GM or GMO) crops, more than half of EU countries are asking to opt out—a total of 15 out of 28 members, according to the latest count by the European Commission.

    The governments, including those of Germany and Scotland, are utilizing new EU rules which allow member states to send territorial exclusion requests to agrochemical manufacturers like Dow, Monsanto, Syngenta, and Pioneer—even if their crops snag wider EU approval.

    As of October 2, the list of members opting out also includes Austria, Croatia, France, Greece, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, the Netherlands, Poland, Denmark, Italy, Slovenia, Belgium's Wallonia region, and Wales and Northern Ireland in the UK.

    By invoking those rights, Greenpeace EU food policy director Franziska Achterberg said, the majority of EU governments are "rejecting the Commission's drive for GM crop approvals."

    "The only way to restore trust in the EU system now is for the Commission to hit the pause button on GM crop approvals and to urgently reform safety testing and the approval system," Achterberg said.

    In European Parliament, Green food safety spokesperson Bart Staes said, "The resolve of these EU member states to ban GMO cultivation on their territory is laudable. It confirms what we already know: that a clear majority in Europe is opposed to genetically-modified crops. It is clearly regrettable that the Commission and some member states want to push ahead with GMO cultivation in spite of the myriad of problems this poses, also cross border."

    Currently, only one GMO crop is cleared for cultivation in Europe—Monsanto's MON810 maize—but seven more varieties are under consideration by the Commission. The EU rules allow member states to ban all eight.

    The opt-outs only cover the cultivation of GMO crops, rather than importing of GMO products. The EU has approved 70 GMO products, including human food, animal feed, and cut flowers.

    Negotiations for a strategy that would allow member states to ban GMO imports in their border-free territories are still under way. If such a plan is approved by the European Parliament's environmental committee at its meeting next month, it could bring even more substantial changes.

    The widespread opposition to GMOs has blocked the Commission from authorizing new strands of crops for years, even as a smaller number of countries, such as Spain and England, push for their approval. The opt-outs emerged as a compromise to that division after years of negotiations between member states.

    Unsurprisingly, agrochemical companies opposed the deal and expressed their disappointment with the swift and far-reaching opt-outs. Biotechnology lobbyist group Europabio said the rules send a "negative signal for all innovative industries considering investing in Europe."

    As Common Dreams has previously reported, the new laws have gotten a mixed reception from food safety advocates who say the EU may in fact be empowering agribusiness companies while failing to protect organic farmers:
    Quote Among the law's weaknesses, environmental groups say biotech companies are given the power to negotiate with individual countries who seek a ban in a particular territory or geographic area.

    [....] If a government does not first seek permission from the GMO manufacturer, it must enact a national ban on one of the following grounds: environmental policy objectives, town and country planning, land use, socio-economic impacts, avoidance of GMO crop presence in other products, agricultural policy objectives, or public policy. Notably, a country is not permitted to ban GMOs on the grounds of environmental concerns—an exclusion that Greenpeace warns could have "serious consequences."
    Nonetheless, green groups called on EU members to take the options available to them and ban GMO crops.

    Now, Staes said, it is "imperative that the Commission and the minority of pro-GMO governments both respect and actively support all those EU governments that have opted to ban GMO cultivation. There are serious concerns that the legal framework for these opt-outs, under the EU rules finalised earlier this year, is not watertight. This could leave governments subject to challenges by biotech corporations. Those member states opting-out of GMO authorisations must therefore have the full support of the Commission and other EU governments.

    Jean-Claude Juncker, president of the Commission, in July 2014 said that member states should not be forced to accept GMO crops if the majority of governments disapprove of them.

    As of their October 3 deadline, it seems that is officially the case.
    "La réalité est un rêve que l'on fait atterrir" San Antonio AKA F. Dard

    Troll-hood motto: Never, ever, however, whatsoever, to anyone, a point concede.

  16. The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to Hervé For This Post:

    3(C)+me (23rd October 2015), avid (4th October 2015), awakeningmom (4th October 2015), Inaiá (22nd October 2015), TelosianEmbrace (8th January 2016), william r sanford72 (14th October 2015)

  17. Link to Post #30
    Australia Avalon Retired Member
    Join Date
    26th January 2011
    Location
    somewhere
    Posts
    2,050
    Thanks
    13,133
    Thanked 11,471 times in 1,706 posts

    Default Re: Monsanto Losing Grounds

    Hoping that this will be another nail in the coffin for Monsanto

    http://worldnewsdailyreport.com/doct...aused-by-gmos/

    Madrid| Doctors of the Carlos III hospital confirmed this morning in a press conference, the first case of human death caused by the ingestion of genetically modified food. Juan Pedro Ramos died from anaphylaxis after eating some recently developed tomatoes containing fish genes, which provoked a violent and lethal allergic reaction.

    This surprising announcement comes after the autopsy of the 31-year old Spanish man who died at the Madrid hospital in the beginning of January. The young man’s health rapidly deteriorated after he suffered an unexplained allergic reaction, and all the drugs used to refrain the anaphylaxis were entirely inefficient. The team of experts claims to have been able to determine that the genetically modified tomatoes that the victim ingested at lunch were the cause of the allergic reaction that caused his death.

    Mr. Ramos was working as a clerk in a Madrid warehouse on January 7, when he started feeling ill just after lunch. A number of symptoms started to manifest themselves, including a violent itchy rash, some serious swelling of the throat and a drastic drop in blood pressure. The man, who was known to have allergies, quickly injected himself some epinephrine, but his health condition continued to deteriorate.

    The young man was rapidly carried to the hospital by co-workers, but the medical staff was unable to identify the cause of his allergic reaction in time and none of the usual treatments or drugs seemed to work. Mr. Ramos was confirmed dead just over an hour after arriving at the hospital.

    The 31-year old man appeared healthy when he visited his family for the holidays.
    The young man appeared happy and healthy when this picture was taken by his roomate, less than 24 hours before he died.
    The medical examiners and forensic experts at the Carlos III hospital had to execute a lot of tests and analysis before they could precisely determine what caused Mr. Ramos to die of an allergic reaction to seafood, since all he had eaten before his death was a bacon, lettuce and tomato sandwich with a diet cola. They were astonished when they discovered that the tomato he had ingested, not only contained some fish-related allergens, but also some antibiotic resistant genes which had prevented Mr. Ramos’ white blood cell from saving his life.

    “At first we thought that there had been some form of contamination of his food, from contact with fish or seafood during the preparation” explained Dr. Rafael Pérez-Santamarina. “It was only when we tested the tomato itself that we noticed that it contained some allergens usually found in seafood. We did many different analysis and they all confirmed that the tomato was indeed the source of the allergens that killed Mr. Ramos.”

    Many experiments on GMOs had produced some horrible tumors and event death in rats and other lab animals, but Mr. Ramos the first known human death to have occured.
    Many experiments on GMOs had produced some horrible tumors and event death in rats and other lab animals, but most genetically modified products on the market were considered to be harmless to humans.
    The case of Mr. Ramos is the first human death officially confirmed to be linked to the ingestion of genetically modified food. It contradicts most studies on GMOs which had concluded that genetically engineered crops currently on the market were completely safe to eat.

    A team led by University of Nebraska scientists had anticipated this kind of problem in 1996, when they found that a Brazil nut protein introduced to improve the nutritional quality of genetically modified soybeans was able to provoke an allergic reaction in people with Brazil nut allergies. However, this kind of problem was dismissed by most scientists as very improbable, since it could easily be avoided with proper safety testing. The soybean injected with the Brazil nut gene was indeed abandoned during development, but it seems that the genetically modified tomato that caused Mr. Ramos’ death had not been submitted to sufficient testing and the lethal risk had not been identified before it was marketed.

    The Spanish ministry of Health, Social Services and Equality ordered for the tomatoes of Portugese origin which infected the young man, to be recalled and removed from stores and markets for safety reasons. More than 7000 tons of tomatoes will therefore be ceased across the country by ministry inspectors and public safety officials.

    The ministry also issued a public statement about the death of Mr Ramos in which it sends its condolences to his family and adds that it will “immediately demand further research on the subject to determine if other genetically modified food products on the European market could represent a risk for the Spanish population”.

  18. The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to Constance For This Post:

    3(C)+me (23rd October 2015), Hervé (4th November 2015), Inaiá (22nd October 2015), PathWalker (22nd October 2015), TelosianEmbrace (8th January 2016), william r sanford72 (3rd November 2015)

  19. Link to Post #31
    United States Avalon Member onawah's Avatar
    Join Date
    28th March 2010
    Posts
    11,151
    Thanks
    27,086
    Thanked 47,706 times in 9,722 posts

    Default Re: Monsanto Losing Grounds

    See ya! American Academy of Pediatrics kicks Monsanto to the curb
    October 19th, 2015, by Julie Wilson
    http://gmo.news/2015-10-19-see-ya-am...-the-curb.html

    Quote Monsanto’s bad publicity is seemingly never-ending, and rightfully so as the biotech giant has worked hard to earn the title of the “World’s Most Evil Corporation.”

    The death and destruction brought on by Monsanto over the years has not gone unnoticed, offending even some of their closest allies.

    One of the most recent partners to distance themselves from Monsanto is the American Academy of Pediatrics, an organization dedicated to protecting children’s health.

    AAP’s split from Monsanto seems like a no-brainer; however, it may not have happened it if wasn’t for food activists and Mom bloggers, reports EchoWatch.

    AAP made its decision to sever ties with Monsanto after Mamavation founder and food activist Leah Segedie “confronted the AAP’s public affairs team after learning about this ‘unholy alliance,’” according to a Mamavation blog post.

    CHILDREN’S HEALTH GROUP DITCHES PARTNERSHIP WITH POISON-PUSHING CORPORATION
    “Months ago we learned that the American Academy of Pediatrics was in a sponsorship relationship with Monsanto, a chemical company and makers of DDT, PCBs, Agent Orange, glyphosate & GMOs,” writes Elizabeth, a blogger for the site.


    “I was completely shocked that the American Academy of Pediatrics, an organization that moms put their trust in at some of the most vulnerable times in their lives was associating with a company that didn’t elicit trust at all,” Segedie said.

    “I knew this association was potentially damaging to the AAP and that Monsanto was getting far more out of it than pediatricians ever would.

    “And it puzzled me that this type of unholy alliance would have ever been allowed, so I contacted them and was very honest and candid about what Monsanto represents to moms.”

    ‘SPLITTING WITH MONSANTO IS LIKE DUMPING A BAD BOYFRIEND WHO NEVER CALLS’
    “And after a couple of months they got back to me right before ShiftCon Social Media Conference so I could announce to the entire eco-wellness blogging community that weekend,” she said.

    “It was a very logical decision for them. I think it may have felt like breaking up with a bad boyfriend that never calls,” Segedie told EchoWatch in an email.

    EchoWatch was able to confirm the announcement after contacting AAP to see if they planned to renew this corporate partnership with Monsanto. They do not.

    A source told EchoWatch that AAP “regularly reviews its partnerships to make sure these companies have values that ‘align with what the Academy believes is in the best interest of children’s health.’”

    Poison-pushing chemical manufacturers sure don’t “align” with kid’s health.

    RETAILERS REACT TO REVELATION THAT GLYPHOSATE IS “PROBABLY CARCINOGENIC”
    Monsanto faced major backlash this year when the World Health Organization (WHO) declared that the key ingredient in the biotech company’s most profitable herbicide is “probably carcinogenic.”

    Scientists with WHO’s International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) concluded that glyphosate, the primary ingredient in Monsanto’s Roundup, is “definitely genotoxic,” meaning it damages DNA.

    The revelation, which many of us knew to be true long ago, sent shockwaves through the food industry worldwide.

    “Some retailers in Switzerland and Germany have removed glyphosate products from their shelves; France has committed to stop selling them to consumers via self-service by 2018,” said Claire Robinson, an editor for GMWatch.org.

    “German states are calling for an EU wide ban. The Danish Working Environment Authority has declared glyphosate a carcinogen. El Salvador and Sri Lanka have banned it (due not to the IARC report but other studies linking it with kidney disease) and the Colombia government has banned aerial spraying of the herbicide on coca crops.”

    While some genetically-engineered foods were designed to withstand higher doses of Monsanto’s Roundup, in turn reducing overall herbicide use, the opposite is true as glyphosate usage has skyrocketed since the mid 1990s, when GMOs first appeared on the market.

    In 2012, American farmers sprayed 280 million pounds of glyphosate on their crops and the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) detected glyphosate in 36 percent of water samples collected across 51 streams in nine Midwestern states.

    Seventy percent of their samples contained aminomethylphosphonic acid (AMPA), glyphosate’s degradation product.

    Additional sources:

    EcoWatch.com

    Mamavation.com

    Toxics.USGS.gov

    EWG.org
    Each breath a gift...
    _____________

  20. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to onawah For This Post:

    Hervé (4th November 2015), TelosianEmbrace (8th January 2016), william r sanford72 (3rd November 2015)

  21. Link to Post #32
    Avalon Retired Member
    Join Date
    7th April 2010
    Location
    The new world
    Posts
    708
    Thanks
    3,045
    Thanked 3,114 times in 556 posts

    Default Re: Monsanto Losing Grounds

    French Monsanto research site damaged in suspected arson attack



    RENNES, France (Reuters) - A Monsanto (MON.N) research centre in western France suffered heavy fire damage in a suspected arson attack early Wednesday morning, the official in charge of the site said.

    The official, Jakob Witten, said police investigators "strongly suspect it was a crime as no electrical or other sources were found."

    The fire was ignited from two different places at the site, where about 10 people work and which is specialised in maize research. The smell of petrol lingered near the building, which had heavy damage in its reception hall and offices.

    "No Monsanto sites in Europe have so far been the victim of fires of criminal origin, this is unprecedented violence," Witten said.

    The U.S. agribusiness group is the frequent target of criticism in France over concerns about genetically modified crops it has developed.

    The government said last month it would use a new European opt-out scheme to ensure a ban on the cultivation of GM crops in France remains in place.


    (Reporting by; Pierre-Henri Allain; writing by Leigh Thomas)


    Attachment 31706



    http://finance.yahoo.com/news/french...151415419.html
    Last edited by 3(C)+me; 4th November 2015 at 00:14.

  22. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to 3(C)+me For This Post:

    Hervé (4th November 2015), onawah (6th January 2016), TelosianEmbrace (8th January 2016), william r sanford72 (24th November 2015)

  23. Link to Post #33
    France Administrator Hervé's Avatar
    Join Date
    7th March 2011
    Location
    Brittany
    Posts
    16,766
    Thanks
    60,316
    Thanked 95,057 times in 15,475 posts

    Default Re: Monsanto Losing Grounds

    Venezuela Passes Law Banning GMOs, by Popular Demand

    by William Camacaro - Frederick B. Mills - Christina M. Schiavoni January 1, 2016



    Farmer, Cooperativa Aracal in the State of Yaracuy.

    Credit: Fred Mills

    The National Assembly of Venezuela, in its final session before a neoliberal dominated opposition takes the helm of legislative power on January 5, passed one of the most progressive seed laws in the world on December 23, 2015; it was promptly signed into law by President Nicolas Maduro. On December 29, during his television show, “In Contact with Maduro, number 52,” Maduro said that the new seed law provides the conditions to produce food “under an agro-ecological model that respects the pacha mama (mother earth) and the right of our children to grow up healthy, eating healthy.” The law is a victory for the international movements for agroecology and food sovereignty because it bans transgenic (GMO) seed while protecting local seed from privatization. The law is also a product of direct participatory democracy –the people as legislator– in Venezuela, because it was hammered out through a deliberative partnership between members of the country’s National Assembly and a broad-based grassroots coalition of eco-socialist, peasant, and agroecological oriented organizations and institutions. This essay provides an overview of the phenomenon of people as legislator, a summary of the new Seed Law, and an appendix with an unofficial translation of some of the articles of the law.

    The People as Legislator of Seed Policy
    The Legal Basis
    The Seed Law is a glowing example of the legal personality of popular power (poder popular) at work in Venezuela, the people as legislator. As Article 5 of the Constitution of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela indicates, “Sovereignty resides intransferable in the people, who exercise it directly as provided for in this Constitution and in the law, and indirectly, through suffrage . . . .” An example of the direct legislative powers of citizens is found in Article 204, no. 7 of the Constitution which specifically names citizens as potential legislators, should they organize a petition of at least one percent of the registered voters (see also Article 205). There are also numerous references to the legislative power of communal structures in the organic Laws of Popular Power (Poder Popular) passed in 2009 and 2010.

    Venezuela’s seed policy had been based on an earlier 2002 Seed Law that was passed in a highly polarized political environment, just months after a short-lived coup against then President Hugo Chavez and just weeks prior to an opposition-led strike and sabotage of the oil industry. That law was superseded in April of 2004, when after halting a project to plant Monsanto’s transgenic soybeans on 500,000 acres of land, then President Hugo Chavez declared, “The people of the United States, of Latin America, and the world, need to follow the example of Venezuela free of transgenics.” This declaration constituted a virtual ban of transgenics. It was also consistent with the government’s emphasis on endogenous development.

    Endogenous development, as Christina Schiavoni and William Camacaro describe it, means development from within:
    Quote “[Endogenous development] implies first looking inside, not outside, to meet the country’s needs, building upon Venezuela’s own unique assets. This means valuing the agricultural knowledge and experience of women, Indigenous, Afro-descendants, and other typically marginalized campesino (peasant farming) populations as fundamental to Venezuela’s food sovereignty. This also means preserving Venezuela’s native seeds, traditional farming methods, and culinary practices.”

    Such endogenous development received further support when in June 2012, Chavez made the Country Plan (2013 – 2019) his presidential campaign platform. The Plan, which is now the law of the land, includes among its five major objectives, “the construction of an eco-socialist economic model of production based on a harmonic relationship between humans and nature that guarantees the rational and optimal use of natural resources, respecting the processes and cycles of nature.” The Plan also prioritizes the expansion of agricultural production, but only in a way that advances the goal of food sovereignty (1.4) and accelerates democratic access to the necessary resources for sustainable agricultural production (1.4.2).
    Chronology of the People as Legislator of Seed Policy
    The blog of Eco-Socialist Space of Popular Power (CDR-SUR) provides a detailed chronology of the popular struggle for input and impact on the new Seed Law. In “The Process of the Collective Construction of the New Seed Law in Venezuela,” CDR-SUR indicates that the people as legislator of seed policy first emerged in response to a notice by the legislative branch of government in mid-2012 that the National Assembly would be considering a substantial revision of the 2002 Seed Law. Since a transgenic and big agribusiness lobby had been at work trying to influence seed policy, it was also time for eco-socialists and other ecological movements to weigh in on the issue.

    In response to the Assembly’s notice, several hundred social and ecological organizations organized the “International Meeting of Guardians of Seeds” in Monte Carmelo (October 26 – 29, 2012), in the State of Lara, in order to draft measures for consideration by the National Assembly that would unequivocally ban transgenic seed and protect Indigenous, Afro-descendant and peasant seed from privatization. More than 1000 persons, 116 organizations, and 162 institutions participated in the grassroots (popular) deliberations (CDR-SUR).

    While the idea of the people as legislator is grounded in the Constitution and the organic laws of popular power, it took some public pressure on the National Assembly and government ministries (called Ministries of Popular Power!) for this legislative voice to be heard and taken into account. In March of 2013, while the relevant legislative committees and government ministries were holding hearings on the Seed Law Project, the “Venezuela Free of Transgenics Campaign” (VFTC) lobbied unsuccessfully for inclusion in the initial phase of debate. The ecological movement, undeterred, organized the Venezuela Free of Transgenics Open Seminar at the Bolivarian University of Venezuela in March of 2013 which sponsored periodic forums on the debate over seed policy.

    On May 25, 2013, the VFTC collected signatures at a national mobilization held in the Plaza de Los Museos in Caracas, to petition the National Assembly to include the coalition’s voice as a legislative partner in the Seed Law deliberations (CDR-SUR). The next day, according to CDR-SUR, Alfredo Ureña, a deputy of the National Assembly and president of the Permanent Subcommission on Agro-Food Development, formulated an action plan to ensure that the Seed Law would be anti-transgenic.

    In June of 2013, the VFTC stepped up its organizing and education efforts. These efforts included, as part of the Fourth Venezuelan Congress on Biological Diversity (June 28), a workshop on the “collective construction of a Seed Law proposal” (CDR-SUR). This collective effort produced documents directly relevant to the legislative deliberations on the Seed Law.

    On October 21, 2013, as documented by William Camacaro and Frederick B. Mills in Venezuela and the Battle against Transgenic Seeds (December 6, 2013), the VFTC mobilized in front of the National Assembly to prevent the advance of a Seed Law proposal because it contained stealth provisions that would have opened the door to transgenic seed and possibly allow the privatization of locally shared “free” seeds. This was a critical turning point in the eco-socialist struggle to influence the nation’s seed policy. As CDR-SUR points out, on October 22, in a meeting between the VFTC and legislators involved in drafting the Seed Law, it was agreed that there would be popular participation in the construction of the Seed Law, referred to as the Popular Constituent Debate on the New Seed Law.

    According to CDR-SUR, “The Popular Constituent Debate convened on the 28 and 29 of October in Monte Carmelo, Sanare in the State of Lara on the occasion of the Day of Peasant Seed (Semilla Campesina).” It was here that a consensus was hammered out by a large variety of agroecological organizations on the basic objectives of the Seed Law.

    As a follow up to this conference in Monte Carmelo, “the second round of discussion [by 135 peasant collectives and educators] took place in the City of Naguanagua in the State of Carabobo from November 1 to 3, 2013” (CDR-SUR). The focus of this round was in large part to determine the procedures of popular debate to ensure that the final product was indeed a result of collective deliberation in concert with key legislators of the National Assembly. These procedures were to ensure the practice of inclusion, public dissemination of information, and the constitutionally grounded praxis of the people as legislator.

    The third round of discussion was held at the Latin American Institute of Agroecology Paulo Freire (IALA) in Barinas state on November 22, 2013. During this round the Popular Constituent Debate constructed a proposed preamble, objectives, and structure for the proposed law. It was agreed that the Popular Constituent Debate would meet two more times in the states of Aragua and Merida.

    After the last round of Popular Constituent Debate on the New Seed Law, the members of the Popular Movement for the New Seed Law and the National Assembly set up a work group to construct the consensus draft of the law and it is this version that entered into the first of the two required discussions by the National Assembly. On October 14, 2014 the proposed Seed Law was approved by the first discussion, one of two discussions normally required prior to the passage of a proposed bill.

    During 2015, workshops were set up to review the proposed seed law before the final discussion; these workshops included members of the National Assembly, the Venezuela Free of Transgenics Campaign, and several government ministries. Through the workshops, several additional mechanisms were built into the law. These included a means for popular control over seeds by means of the recognition of the Popular Council for the Storage and Protection of Local, Peasant, Indigenous, and Afro-descendant Seed, as well as a recognition of the government’s role in licensing free seed and thereby protecting it from patents or other forms of privatization.

    In “Venezuela to Consider Ban on Transgenic Seed” (June 8, 2015), Camacaro and Mills discuss the consensus reached by the collective efforts of the agroecological movement with regard to seed policy. In short, the popular version of the Seed Law proposal (June 2015) was constructed over a two year period of collective deliberation by a broad coalition of agroecological oriented organizations and movements. On December 26, 2015, The Popular Movement for the New Seed Law issued a celebratory statement declaring:
    Quote “This 22 of December, with the approval of the new Seed Law by the National Assembly, we close the legislative cycle of popular constituent debate and collective deliberation that we initiated more than two years ago. The product of our struggle is a law that has no precedent anywhere in the world in terms of both its emancipatory content and the way it has been made possible by the protagonistic participation of the People as Legislator.”
    The Seed Law was also endorsed, “after ample discussion,” by the Presidential Council of Communes. A statement issued by the Council on June 3 reads:

    Quote “From the diverse voices of the Presidential Council of Popular Government of the Communes, the comuneros (members of communes) of the country solicit the prompt approval, in the second discussion [by the National Assembly], of the Seed Law . . . The Seed Law, constructed collectively from the grassroots, is anti-transgenic and makes us advance significantly towards the recovery and consolidation of local, peasant, Indigenous and Afro-descendant seeds. Moreover we are speaking about a proposed Seed Law, profoundly anti-imperialist and ecosocialist, that incarnates the legacy of the Leader of the Bolivarian Revolution, Hugo Chavez, at a moment in which the transnationals of agribusiness aim at privatizing seed and life.”
    The people as legislator, then, consisting of both the nationwide agroecological movements as well as the highest level of communal representation, made full use of their constitutionally grounded constituent power to partner with the liberal democratic state to forge the nation’s seed policy.

    Summary of the Seed Law
    The new Seed Law is inspired by the eco-socialist movement in Venezuela and the worldwide peasant movement La Via Campesina and is informed by the Indigenous philosophy of vivir bien (living well). As President of Bolivia, Evo Morales Ayma explains:
    Quote “Vivir Bien well is to live in equality and justice. It is where there is no exploited and no exploiters, where there are no excluded and no persons who exclude others, where there are no marginalized persons and no persons who marginalize others. Vivir Bien is to live in community, in collectivity, in reciprocity, in solidarity, and, most important, in complementarity.” (note 2)
    The Seed Law contributes to vivir bien and advances eco-socialist principles by promoting small- and medium-scale farming using agroecological methods rather than monoculture that depends heavily on environmentally harmful chemical interventions. Moreover, it prioritizes the collective interest in the farming community’s control of the means of production, distribution and consumption of food. This law bans transgenic seeds and thereby avoids the political capture of seed policy by the corporate interests of transnational big agriculture while promoting and protecting the heirloom seeds and farming methods of Venezuela’s Indigenous, peasant, and Afro-descendant communities. Traditional seeds (semillas campesinas) will be immune to patents and privatization and come under the control of the communities that share them. The seed is considered a living thing, and as such is not only an object at hand for use in agriculture, but a subject that is entitled to certain rights and protections. These rights, combined with the philosophy of vivir bien and eco-socialist principles, form the ethical and legal basis for the development of food sovereignty and food security and of resistance to transnational corporate capture of the nation’s agricultural policy.

    The law is consistent with Article 127 of the Constitution of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela: “The genome of living things cannot be patented, and the law that refers to bio-ethical principles regulates the matter.” It is also consistent with the Country Plan 2013 -2019 that declares one of the “great historic objectives” to “construct an eco-socialist economic model of production, based on the harmonious relation between man and nature, that guarantees the use and rational and optimal utilization of vital natural resources.” (p. 19-20).

    In closing, with the passage of the Seed Law, history is being made in Venezuela. Not only is the law extraordinary in and of itself, both for its content and the for the highly participatory way in which it was developed, but the fact that it was passed at this very moment, in the face of adverse circumstances both globally and nationally, is all the more extraordinary. Globally, national seed legislation is increasingly being co-opted by corporate agribusiness interests, with many governments turning a blind eye, or worse, actively colluding in the process, as has been powerfully documented by GRAIN and La Via Campesina. Nationally, Venezuela’s food system has been under attack by, among other things, an “economic war” being waged by some elements of the opposition, resulting in food shortages that played a definitive role in influencing the recent elections. The economic war has shown that, despite important advancements made toward food sovereignty, i.e., toward greater national and local popular control over the food system, since the inception of Venezuela’s Bolivarian Revolution, much work remains to be done to achieve a food system that is truly equitable, sustainable, and under the firm control of the people, in partnership with the government. The people, however, are clearly determined, and they are not going to sit back passively and wait for this to happen, as we have seen with the major popular organizing and mobilizing efforts that ultimately led to the successful passage of the Seed Law.

    The passage of the Seed Law thus marks a major step forward for food sovereignty in Venezuela, as well as a victory for the global food sovereignty movement, and a warning sign to corporate agribusiness. However, as they say in Venezuela, “la lucha sigue” – the struggle continues – and indeed the passage of the Seed Law is one step, albeit an important step, in a much longer process. As the popular movements who worked on the Law’s passage are already emphasizing, now is the time to disseminate it, defend it against likely backlash, and push forward its full implementation. While the Venezuelan people will remain the protagonists in this process, they are calling for international solidarity to defend what might arguably be the world’s most revolutionary seed law.


    APPENDIX: Highlights of Several Articles of the Seed Law (unofficial translations)
    Article 1 of the law summarizes its main features:
    Quote “The present Law has as its objective to preserve, protect, and guarantee the production, propagation, conservation, and free circulation and use of seed, as well as the promotion, research, distribution, and commercialization of the same, based on a socialist agroecological vision, with the aim of consolidating our food security and sovereignty, prohibiting the release, the use, the propagation, and the entrance into the country and the national production of transgenic seeds as well as the patents and right of the breeder over the seed, in a manner that is sovereign, democratic, participatory, co-responsible and in solidarity, making special emphasis on the valorization of the Indigenous, afro-descendent, peasant and local seed, that benefits biodiversity and helps to preserve life on the planet in conformity with what is established in the Constitution of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela.”
    Article 2 lays out the goals of the law:
    1. Promote the transition from conventional systems of production based on monoculture and the use of agrochemicals with agro-industrial and/or corporate seed for conventional use, to an agroecological system and the preservation of the environment in the short, medium and long term, based on agro-biodiversity.
    2. Promote the production of seeds that are necessary to guarantee national production, with the goal of avoiding importation and achieving national sovereignty.
    3. Promote the transition to communal and eco-socialist agriculture, in order to protect agro-biodiversity by means of the production of local, peasant, Indigenous, and Afro-descendant seed.
    4. Revalorize and re-legitimize the local, traditional, and ancestral knowledge wisdom, beliefs and practices of the peasant, Indigenous, Afro-descendant, and other communities.
    5. Prohibit the privatization of seed.
    6. Orient the organization and planning of public policy in function of the different scales of production, distinguishing the policies intended for family agriculture or polyculture in small-scale production from the policies intended for big producers.
    Article 3. Seed is recognized as a living thing and a constituent part of Mother Earth and for this reason it is considered an object as well as the subject of right and the application of norms pertaining to the preservation of life on the Planet and the conservation of biological diversity.

    Article 4. The local peasant, Indigenous, and Afro-descendant seed is declared a common good of public, cultural as well as natural material and immaterial interest of the peoples; this seed is considered a contribution of our communities to the improvement of vegetable varieties and their propagation and preservation for a sustainable form of agriculture that constitutes the basis of our food and our culture.

    Article 5. The production, importation, commercialization, distribution, release, use, propagation and entrance into the country of transgenic seed is prohibited. The National System of Seeds will develop and guarantee the technical, organizational, and institutional capacity to prevent, identify, detect, correct, return, and to sanction the violations of this prohibition.

    One of the principle values of the law, expressed in Article 8, is that it “promotes, in a spirit of solidarity, the free exchange of seed and opposes the conversion of seed into intellectual or patented property or any other form of privatization.”

    With regard to popular power (grassroots democracy), Article 9 provides that a Popular Council will be responsible for the storage, protection and regulation of Indigenous, Afro-descendant and peasant seed “with an emphasis on the exchange and local distribution of seed to guarantee our food sovereignty and the construction of an eco-socialist model of economic production.

    Article 11 of the law also creates a National Seed Commission constituted by officials from several ministries related to agriculture, as well as representatives from both the Presidential Councils that deal with seed policy and the Popular Council for the storage and protection of local, Indigenous, peasant and Afro-descendant seed. This Commission will be responsible for planning and promoting seed policy as well as facilitating research, development, production and commercialization of seed.

    Article 14 creates the National Institute for Seed (INASEM) which will be responsible for providing the material resources and administration necessary for implementing much of the policy developed by the Seed Plan, such as operating labs, offering technical assistance and issuing licenses for the disposition of certain categories of seed. This institute will also include spokespersons from the Presidential Council concerned with seed policy, but is largely a governmental body.

    Notes:
    1. In the section on chronology, the authors are indebted to the content of a chronology of the struggle produced by the CDR-SUR (Espacio Ecosocialista Del Poder Popular, Nov. 6, 2015). We have translated parts of that document into English. All shortcomings are, of course, our own.

    2. Entrevista al President Evo Morales Ayma, con motivo de la aprobacion en la Asamblea General de las Naciones Unidas de la Declaracion de las Naciones Unidas sobre los derechos de los pueblos indigenas, La Paz, 24 septiembre, 2007 in Vivir Bien: Mensajes y documentos sobre el Vivir Bien, 1995-2010, Ministerio de Relaciones Exteriores, Estado Plurinacional de Bolivia.)

    3. All translations of government documents are unofficial.

    Frederick B. Mills is a Professor of Philosophy at Bowie State University William Camacaro, MFA, is a Member of the Bolivarian Circle of New York “Alberto Lovera” and an expert on Venezuela. Christina Schiavoni is an activist and scholar focused on food sovereignty and the right to food.
    "La réalité est un rêve que l'on fait atterrir" San Antonio AKA F. Dard

    Troll-hood motto: Never, ever, however, whatsoever, to anyone, a point concede.

  24. The Following 12 Users Say Thank You to Hervé For This Post:

    3(C)+me (8th January 2016), Ahnung-quay (6th January 2016), avid (7th January 2016), Bill Ryan (8th January 2016), DeDukshyn (6th January 2016), drneglector (12th March 2016), East Sun (6th January 2016), onawah (6th January 2016), penn (6th January 2016), Sophocles (8th January 2016), TelosianEmbrace (8th January 2016), william r sanford72 (8th January 2016)

  25. Link to Post #34
    France Administrator Hervé's Avatar
    Join Date
    7th March 2011
    Location
    Brittany
    Posts
    16,766
    Thanks
    60,316
    Thanked 95,057 times in 15,475 posts

    Default Re: Monsanto Losing Grounds

    Putin: Russia To Become #1 Exporter of Non-GMO Foods

    Amanda Froelich (True Activist) Wed, Jan 6

    Russia is to become the world’s ‘leading exporter’ of non-GMO foods that are based on ‘ecologically clean’ production.


    Russia's babushka farmers - they kicked Napoleon's and Hitler's asses, and now intend to do the same to Monsanto

    This article originally appeared at True Activist

    Putin is not a fan of Monsanto or bioengineered anything, which is why, in a new address to the Russian Parliament last Thursday, he proudly outlined his plan to make Russia the world’s ‘leading exporter’ of non-GMO foods that are based on ‘ecologically clean’ production.

    The Russian president harshly criticized food production in the United States, stating that Western food producers are no longer offering high quality, healthy, and ecologically clean food.
    Quote “We are not only able to feed ourselves taking into account our lands, water resources – Russia is able to become the largest world supplier of healthy, ecologically clean and high-quality food which the Western producers have long lost, especially given the fact that demand for such products in the world market is steadily growing,” Putin said in his address.
    Reuters reports that it is likely Putin will use the country’s affinity for organic and sustainable farming as a centerpiece in his economic strategy.
    Quote “Ten years ago, we imported almost half of the food from abroad, and were dependent on imports. Now Russia is among the exporters. Last year, Russian exports of agricultural products amounted to almost $20 billion – a quarter more than the revenue from the sale of arms, or one-third the revenue coming from gas exports,” he added.
    In Putin’s eyes, Russia is fully capable of supplying the domestic market with home-grown food by 2020.

    This declaration comes just months after the Kremlin decided to stop the production of GMO-containing foods, a triumph seen as a huge step forward in the international fight to expose and ruin Monsanto.

    With this latest news, Russia has clearly established itself as a dominant force in the realm of organic farming.
    "La réalité est un rêve que l'on fait atterrir" San Antonio AKA F. Dard

    Troll-hood motto: Never, ever, however, whatsoever, to anyone, a point concede.

  26. The Following 10 Users Say Thank You to Hervé For This Post:

    3(C)+me (8th January 2016), avid (8th January 2016), Bill Ryan (8th January 2016), drneglector (12th March 2016), meeradas (8th January 2016), Sierra (21st February 2016), Sophocles (8th January 2016), StandingWave (8th January 2016), TelosianEmbrace (8th January 2016), william r sanford72 (8th January 2016)

  27. Link to Post #35
    France Administrator Hervé's Avatar
    Join Date
    7th March 2011
    Location
    Brittany
    Posts
    16,766
    Thanks
    60,316
    Thanked 95,057 times in 15,475 posts

    Default Re: Monsanto Losing Grounds

    Russia Bans US GMO Imports

    Author: F. William Engdahl 26.02.2016





    Russia is making consequent its decision last fall to ban the commercial planting of Genetically Modified Organisms or GMO in its agriculture acreage. The latest decision, effective February 15, 2016 does not at all please Monsanto or the US Grain Cartel.

    On February 15, a Russian national import ban on soybeans and corn imports from the United States took effect. The Russian food safety regulator Rosselkhoznadzor announced that the ban was because of GMO and of microbial contamination and the absence of effective US controls on soybean and corn exports to prevent export of quarantinable grains, also known as microbial contamination. The Russian food safety regulator added that corn imported from the US is often infected with dry rot of maize. In addition, he said, corn can be used for GMO crops in Russia. The potential damage from import and spread of quarantinable objects on the territory of Russia is estimated at $126 -189 million annually.

    Striking the heart of the GMO cartel
    The Russian decision is a huge blow to USA agribusiness. For decades, the US grain cartel companies–ADM, Cargill, Bunge–have dominated the global trade in soybeans and corn, the most widely used animal feed for cattle, pigs, chickens because of its high protein content.

    Today, the contamination of national agriculture and the food chain in different countries, even those banning planting of GMO crops, typically comes in through a back door, namely, the free import of GMO contaminated corn and soybeans. I’ve been told by people in a position to know that EU agriculture policy is determined less by European farmer organizations, for example, than by the large US agribusiness lobby of Monsanto, DuPont, Syngenta, Cargill and friends. Similarly, though until recently the Chinese government officially banned planting or licensing of GMO crops inside China’s commercial agriculture, GMO has inundated the country via a loophole that allows unrestricted import of GMO soybeans. Today more than 60% of all soybeans consumed in China or used for animal feed is GMO. The Russian decision, to my knowledge is the first blow to be struck against the powerful GMO agribusiness cartel. Thank US sanctions in effect that the crisis created the opportunity.

    As a long-term two year independent laboratory rat experiment has demonstrated, a diet of GMO soybeans or GMO corn over a period of more than six months produces virulent tumors in the GMO-fed rats and excessive early mortality. Were we to eat a diet of McDonald GMO-contaminated hamburgers for a six month period, I shudder to imagine the human damage that would wreak. McDonalds hamburger patties, I was told by an insider in the grain trade, contains beef supplemented with up to 30% GMO soybeans. Today almost 100% of soybeans on the world market are GMO, most from Monsanto.

    With this latest ban, the Russian authorities almost make complete their decision, announced September 2015, to rid the country of GMO for consumption by humans or animals.

    That decision still left a gaping loophole by not also banning GMO soybeans and GMO corn. After this latest decision, now the only loophole remaining, which is still significant, to rid Russian agriculture entirely of GMO contamination, is to extend the GMO soybean and GMO corn import ban to all countries which cannot conclusively demonstrate their corn or soybeans are GMO free, using the same criteria used for US soybean and corn imports.

    Today the USA is the world’s largest followed by Argentina and Brazil. The three countries produce 85% of all world soybeans. And almost all of that, aside from pockets of certified GMO-free acreage in Brazil, is GMO contaminated.

    Then come India and China, each with around 5% of the world total. China recently changed its GMO policy and seems intent on the dubious policy of becoming a leading GMO soybean and maize producer with the $43 billion ChemChina takeover bid last month of Swiss GMO and pesticide giant, Syngenta.

    Soybeans are high protein and are used in almost every industrial food product today from chocolate bars (lecithin) to the feed for KFC fried chicken, to soy drinks. Because of the power of the GMO lobby over the past two decades, almost all that soybean food is GMO. As well, the GMO comes into the food chain via so-called high protein “power feed,” a mix of soybeans and corn. Soybean meal and soybean hulls are widely used in animal feeds. This 44% – 48% protein meal is the most common source of protein in feed used in poultry, hog and dairy rations. Corn Gluten Meal, made from processing corn, has a 60% protein content and is used widely for poultry and dairy cattle feed in the USA, Canada and the EU.

    Despite the fact that a majority of EU member countries, including Germany, have chosen to ban planting of GMO, a Brussels loophole permits ADM and Cargill unlimited import of soybeans or corn that is GMO. That way the food chain is contaminated via GMO in the animal diet.

    Since near 93% of USA corn today and 94% of its soybeans are GMO today, a safe rule-of-thumb is the precautionary principle–ban it unless proven GMO-free, which is precisely what Russian authorities have done. The Precautionary Principle is simply that, if regulatory authorities are not 100% certain it is GMO-free, prohibit it.
    The US-based agribusiness cartel, led by Cargill and Monsanto, ensured that the World Trade Organization’s Agreement on Agriculture, written by a former Vice President of Cargill, Daniel Amstutz, prioritized the right of free trade above that of national food health and safety. The latest move by the Russian Federation authorities shows that a major food-producing nation, today surpassing the USA as world’s largest grain producer, in part thanks to the foolish US sanctions on Russia, is prioritizing the health and safety of its citizens above the corporate interests of agribusiness. That’s a healthy development.

    F. William Engdahl is strategic risk consultant and lecturer, he holds a degree in politics from Princeton University and is a best-selling author on oil and geopolitics, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.
    http://journal-neo.org/2016/02/26/ru...s-gmo-imports/
    "La réalité est un rêve que l'on fait atterrir" San Antonio AKA F. Dard

    Troll-hood motto: Never, ever, however, whatsoever, to anyone, a point concede.

  28. The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to Hervé For This Post:

    3(C)+me (5th March 2016), avid (27th February 2016), KiwiElf (6th March 2016), Sierra (6th March 2016), william r sanford72 (1st March 2016)

  29. Link to Post #36
    United States Avalon Member onawah's Avatar
    Join Date
    28th March 2010
    Posts
    11,151
    Thanks
    27,086
    Thanked 47,706 times in 9,722 posts

    Default Re: Monsanto Losing Grounds

    Monsanto Stunned – California Confirms ‘Roundup’ Will Be Labeled “Cancer Causing”
    February 20, 2016 by Danell Glade
    Quote — California just dealt Monsanto a blow as the state’s Environmental Protection Agency will now list glyphosate — the toxic main ingredient in the U.S.’ best-selling weedkiller, Roundup — as known to cause cancer.

    Under the Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986 — usually referred to as Proposition 65, its original name — chemicals that cause cancer, birth defects, or other reproductive harm are required to be listed and published by the state. Chemicals also end up on the list if found to be carcinogenic by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) — a branch of the World Health Organization.

    In March, the IARC released a report that found glyphosate to be a “probable carcinogen.”

    Besides the “convincing evidence” the herbicide can cause cancer in lab animals, the report also found:

    “Case-control studies of occupational exposure in the U.S.A., Canada, and Sweden reported increased risk for non-Hodgkin lymphoma that persisted after adjustments to other pesticides.”

    California’s decision to place glyphosate on the toxic chemicals list is the first of its kind. As Dr. Nathan Donley of the Center for Biological Diversity said in an email to Ecowatch, “As far as I’m aware, this is the first regulatory agency within the U.S. to determine that glyphosate is a carcinogen. So this is a very big deal.”

    Now that California EPA’s Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) has filed its “notice of intent to list” glyphosate as a known cancer agent, the public will have until October 5th to comment. There are no restrictions on sale or use associated with the listing.

    Monsanto was seemingly baffled by the decision to place cancer-causing glyphosate on the state’s list of nearly 800 toxic chemicals. Spokesperson for the massive company, Charla Lord, told Agri-Pulse that “glyphosate is an effective and valuable tool for farmers and other users, including many in the state of California. During the upcoming comment period, we will provide detailed scientific information to OEHHA about the safety of glyphosate and work to ensure that any potential listing will not affect glyphosate use or sales in California.”

    Roundup is sprayed on crops around the world, particularly with Monsanto’s Roundup-Ready varieties — genetically engineered to tolerate large doses of the herbicide to facilitate blanket application without harming crops. Controversy has surrounded this practice for years — especially since it was found farmers increased use of Roundup, rather than lessened it, as Monsanto had claimed.

    Less than a week after the WHO issued its report naming glyphosate carcinogenic, Monsanto called for a retraction — and still maintains that Roundup is safe when used as directed.

    On Thursday, an appeals court in Lyon, France, upheld a 2012 ruling in favor of farmer Paul Francois, who claimed he had been chemically poisoned and suffered neurological damage after inhaling Monsanto’s weedkiller, Lasso. Not surprisingly, the agrichemical giant plans to take its appeal to the highest court in France.

    It’s still too early to tell whether other states will follow California’s lead.

    This article (California Just Announced It Will Label Monsanto’s Roundup as Cancer Causing) is free and open source. You have permission to republish this article under a Creative Commons license with attribution to Claire Bernish and theAntiMedia.org.



    http://www.hlfteam.com/monsanto-stun...ancer-causing/
    Each breath a gift...
    _____________

  30. The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to onawah For This Post:

    3(C)+me (5th March 2016), avid (2nd March 2016), Blacklight43 (1st March 2016), Hervé (5th March 2016), KiwiElf (6th March 2016), william r sanford72 (1st March 2016)

  31. Link to Post #37
    United States Avalon Member Wide-Eyed's Avatar
    Join Date
    30th July 2015
    Posts
    330
    Thanks
    2,777
    Thanked 1,008 times in 274 posts

    Default Re: Monsanto Losing Grounds

    Quote Posted by Daphne (here)
    Quote Posted by Omniverse (here)
    I have been wanting to send a bunch of emails to companies that use corn products asking if they use roundup rdy corn. And telling them I am boycotting their product until it changes if they do use it(hitting up frito lay first). I suggest others do the same!!! If we hit them in their wallet, that is what makes corporations make 'ethical' decisions. lol
    Agreed, and this is why Ben and Jerry's ice cream's decision to remove all GMO ingredients is so important as well. I think at some point companies will be in the position of asking themselves "do we want to be the LAST company to remove the GMOs? Or a trailblazer like Ben and Jerry's".

    Or this is my hope.
    Good posts by all and thank you for setting it up as you've stated it Herve' because Monstersanto is losing ground and we won't give up our power to them. It is a matter of momentum and spirit which is continuing to expand. July 1 Vermont's GMO labeling law goes into effect and already food companies are feeling the power of light and feeling and experiencing what voting with our pocket/ choice feels like. Food companies are not going to sell only properly GMO labelled products in Vermont and the rest of their national brands not labelled non-GMO. Campbell's Soup for instance, has stated it will comply with Vermont's GMO labeling law and also remove any ingredients from their products that have GMO's and it will not effect their costs and they will not raise their prices on products. Once you have one market with GMO labeling laws when you are a national brand the company is not going to have GMO Pepsi in Chicago and GMO free in Vermont you are going to avoid the loss of business and bad exposure. Good stuff peeps keep on going. Feels good to get a win. Let's keep it going out there. Paraphrasing from an author describing consciousness " Light a match in a dark room and it's suddenly light conversely you can't take a light room and make it dark by adding darkness... "

  32. The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to Wide-Eyed For This Post:

    3(C)+me (5th March 2016), avid (2nd March 2016), Hervé (5th March 2016), KiwiElf (6th March 2016), william r sanford72 (7th March 2016)

  33. Link to Post #38
    United States Avalon Member onawah's Avatar
    Join Date
    28th March 2010
    Posts
    11,151
    Thanks
    27,086
    Thanked 47,706 times in 9,722 posts

    Default Re: Monsanto Losing Grounds

    Matching funds of $1/4 million offer from Dr.Mercola to Organic Consumers Assoc. in Monsanto battle
    People on PA have attacked Dr. Mercola, but I like him for lots of reasons, including his willingness to speak out as he did here:

    and his personal war on Monsanto, in which he has helped unite a lot of other factions such as the non-profit, Organic Consumers Assoc.
    Of course, it's unlikely OCA will be able to raise enough funds to match $250,000, but it's a great gesture, in any case.
    (I'm not asking for donations for OCA, though they seem to be doing a good job, but just alerting folks to a new chapter in the ongoing war on GMOs, and one current effort.)
    OCA's latest newsletter message follows:
    Quote It's worth fighting for, Mr. Frodo
    As I write this letter, I can’t help but think about this quote from J.R. R. Tolkien, author of “The Hobbit” and the classic “Lord of the Rings” trilogy:

    “Folks in those stories had lots of chances of turning back, only they didn’t. They kept going. Because they were holding on to something. That there’s some good in this world, Mr. Frodo… and it’s worth fighting for.”

    It would be easier, and heaven knows less costly, to give up on the fight against Monsanto. But I believe there are good people in this world—good farmers, good farmworkers, good mothers and fathers and grandparents—who deserve clean water, healthy soils, a stable climate and toxic-free food.

    And I they—and you—are worth fighting for.

    Our ally in this fight, Mercola.com, will match up to $250,000 if we can raise that much by midnight March 15. Let’s stop Monsanto’s wrecking ball! You can donate online, by mail or by phone, details here.

    This coming week, USDA Secretary Tom Vilsack and the rest of Monsanto’s minions in the U.S. Senate will work overtime to hand Monsanto another anti-consumer GMO labeling victory.

    They will lie about the reasons.

    They will tell you labeling can't be done, even though food corporations already do it in 64 other countries.

    They will tell you how concerned they are that labels will make you pay more for your food, even though those lies have been exposed countless times.

    They will tell you that labeling will trigger “chaos” in the marketplace, even though no other state food labeling laws have ever done so.

    They will tell you that a voluntary standard is all we need, as if corporations that have paid hundreds of millions of dollars to keep labels off their products would suddenly voluntarily label them.

    They will tell you that GMOs, and the carcinogenic toxins like glyphosate that are used to grow them, are “proven” safe, even though a growing chorus of reputable scientists say otherwise.

    How could so many politicians, fall so in line with Monsanto’s lies?

    Cash. Lots of it. Cold. Hard. Cash. Millions and millions of dollars spent to protect a corporation whose sole existence depends on selling poisons that pollute our water, our soils, our bodies.

    It’s a corrupt and evil—and shortsighted—system that protects the purveyors of poisons, instead of the very future of life.

    But I believe there’s good in this world. And it’s worth fighting for. This is our story. We're not turning back.

    And I don't take for granted that you are in this fight with me.

    Our ally in this fight, Mercola.com, will match up to $250,000 if we can raise that much by midnight March 15. Let’s stop Monsanto’s wrecking ball! You can donate online, by mail or by phone, details here.
    https://action.organicconsumers.org/...page_KEY=12139

    In gratitude,

    Ronnie Cummins
    National Director, Organic Consumers Association and Organic Consumers Fund

    update:
    Also, Food Democracy Now, another consumer protection non-profit, just reported this:
    Quote Wall Street just Kicked Monsanto to the Curb!

    Two days ago, Reuters reported that Monsanto expects it’s sales to REMAIN FLAT for the rest of 2016 and possibly into the future. As a result, Monsanto’s share fell more than 7% and are now down almost 30% over that past 12 months as a result of STEEP decline in sales of Monsanto’s GMO seeds and toxic weedkiller Roundup, which has been linked to cancer by the World Health Organization.
    And Just Today, Wall Street investment bank Goldman Sachs DOWNGRADED Monsanto to a SELL – encouraging investors to DUMP Monsanto across the board.
    This terrible news for Monsanto comes on top of the fact that Monsanto SLASHED it’s workforce by 16%, cutting more than 3,600 employees since late 2015.
    Last edited by onawah; 5th March 2016 at 19:34.
    Each breath a gift...
    _____________

  34. The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to onawah For This Post:

    3(C)+me (5th March 2016), Hervé (5th March 2016), KiwiElf (6th March 2016), Sierra (6th March 2016), william r sanford72 (7th March 2016)

  35. Link to Post #39
    France Administrator Hervé's Avatar
    Join Date
    7th March 2011
    Location
    Brittany
    Posts
    16,766
    Thanks
    60,316
    Thanked 95,057 times in 15,475 posts

    Default Re: Monsanto Losing Grounds

    EU Countries Launch Shock Rebellion against Glyphosate Herbicides

    Posted on Mar 5 2016 - 11:26am by Sustainable Pulse



    The Netherlands and Sweden have joined France on Saturday in coming out strongly against the re-licensing of glyphosate-based herbicides in Europe. The remarkable rebellion against the World’s most used herbicide is likely to delay the expected March 8 EU vote by member countries on the re-licensing of the chemical.



    Public pressure against glyphosate in countries across Europe has been intense, with nearly 1.5 million people petitioning the EU’s health commissioner, Vytenis Andriukaitis, for a ban on the substance, the Guardian reported.

    After a Dutch parliament vote opposing the renewal of glyphosate’s permit, the Netherlands called for a postponement of the EU-wide decision. “If there is no possibility to postpone the vote, then we will vote against the proposal,” said Marcel van Beusekom, a spokesman for the Netherlands agriculture ministry.

    The move by Sweden and the Netherlands follows the announcement on Friday by French Minister of Ecology Ségolène Royal that France will vote against the EU re-licensing of glyphosate.

    Royal also added that France was not backing the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) on their recent safety assessment of glyphosate and was instead basing their decision on the report of the World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) in 2015, which declared glyphosate to be a probable human carcinogen.

    The Swedish environment minister, Åsa Romson, said: “We won’t take risks with glyphosate and we don’t think that the analysis done so far is good enough. We will propose that no decision is taken until further analysis has been done and the EFSA scientists have been more transparent about their considerations.”

    Romson added: “We are raising concerns because our citizens are raising concerns. They want to feel safe and secure with food and production in our society.”

    This move by France and their EU partners will hit the biotech giant Monsanto and other large pesticide companies which rely on glyphosate-based herbicides for a large percentage of their global profits.

    Glyphosate is now the most widely and heavily applied weed-killer in the history of chemical agriculture globally.

    Andriukaitis meanwhile confirmed that member states would discuss the regulation of glyphosate in the days to come and also added, in a very important shift in EU policy; “I commit to working with the member states to draw up a list of co-formulants in pesticides that could pose a health risk”. This is another statement that will shake the Biotech industry to the core, as previously all regulators worldwide have completely ignored the possible health risks of co-formulants, otherwise known as adjuvants or non-active ingredients in pesticides.


    Related:
    France Pushes for EU Ban on Glyphosate Herbicides
    European NGOs File Legal Complaint over Glyphosate Re-Approval
    "La réalité est un rêve que l'on fait atterrir" San Antonio AKA F. Dard

    Troll-hood motto: Never, ever, however, whatsoever, to anyone, a point concede.

  36. The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to Hervé For This Post:

    3(C)+me (6th March 2016), KiwiElf (6th March 2016), onawah (6th March 2016), Sierra (6th March 2016), william r sanford72 (7th March 2016)

  37. Link to Post #40
    United States Avalon Member onawah's Avatar
    Join Date
    28th March 2010
    Posts
    11,151
    Thanks
    27,086
    Thanked 47,706 times in 9,722 posts

    Default Re: Monsanto Losing Grounds

    That's really good news, Herve, thanks! Deserves a bump
    Each breath a gift...
    _____________

  38. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to onawah For This Post:

    Hervé (6th March 2016), KiwiElf (6th March 2016), william r sanford72 (7th March 2016)

+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1 2 4 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts