DuPont and Dow Chemical—announce plans to merge into a $130 billion giant, taking us one giant step closer to a total monopoly on our food suppy

         

…………………………………………………………………………………….

 

Published on

Friday, December 11, 2015

by

Common Dreams

The DuPont and Dow Chemical Merger: Bad Deal for People and the Planet

Groups are calling on the Department of Justice to reject the deal to protect food supply

by

Sarah Lazare, staff writer

 

“Just a handful of large chemical companies including Dow and DuPont already control most of the seed supply used to grow crops like corn and soybeans, as well as the herbicides that genetically engineered seeds are designed to be grown with,” said Wenonah Hauter of Food & Water Watch. (Photo: Desmanthus4food/Wikimedia/cc)

 

Watchdog groups are sounding the alarm after two of the oldest and largest corporations in the United States—DuPont and Dow Chemical—announced Friday plans to merge into a $130 billion giant, thereby establishing the world’s biggest seed and pesticide conglomerate.

The new behemoth, named DowDuPont, would then be split into “three independent, publicly traded companies through tax-free spin-offs,” according to a joint corporate statement marking one of the the largest deals of 2015.

These companies would focus on agriculture, material science, and “technology and innovation-driven Specialty Products company,” the statement continues. Together, they would form the second-largest chemical company world-wide.

The merger, if it goes through, is expected to slash numerous jobs.

And it would expand the influence of two Big Ag players, with the combined venture retaining control over “17 percent of global pesticide sales and about 40 percent of America’s corn-seed and soybean markets,” according to the calculations of Washington Post analysts.

Rights groups warn that this large share would be very bad for people and the planet—and called on the Department of Justice to block the merger.

“The Department of Justice needs to block this merger to prevent the further corporate control of the basic building blocks of the food supply.”
—Wenonah Hauter, Food & Water Watch

“Just a handful of large chemical companies including Dow and DuPont already control most of the seed supply used to grow crops like corn and soybeans, as well as the herbicides that genetically engineered seeds are designed to be grown with,” said Wenonah Hauter, executive director of advocacy organization Food & Water Watch, in a statement released Friday.

“Any merger that consolidates this market into fewer hands will give farmers fewer choices and put them at even more economic disadvantage,” Hauter continued. “And it will make it harder for agriculture to get off the GMO-chemical treadmill that just keeps increasing in speed. The Department of Justice needs to block this merger to prevent the further corporate control of the basic building blocks of the food supply.”

According to the New York Times, “Despite the eventual breakup, the deal would undergo rigorous antitrust scrutiny for all three companies, particularly the agricultural chemicals company.”

Diana Moss, president of the American Antitrust Institute, confirmed Friday that “any merger on the agricultural inputs side of DuPont and Dow will get antitrust scrutiny.”

Nonetheless, watchdog groups warn that the merger announcement is a bad sign, in an industry that has already undergone dramatic consolidation.

“Some of the markets for biotech and seeds are highly concentrated, which has been driven by Monsanto having made so many acquisitions in the past. If you put a new merger in the this mix, it’s going to raise concerns about leaving only two or maybe three firms,” Moss explained. “Farmers could be squeezed even more and consumers could pay higher prices.”

Robert Reich, University of California at Berkeley professor and former Secretary of Labor, took to social media to warn that the merger would result in greater political power for the corporation, as well as “higher prices for you for food and a variety of other products.”

“Crop prices continue to drop, so the only way these giant companies can increase earnings is by increasing their market power to raise prices (Monsanto is also on the prowl to buy a Big Ag or chemical company),” Reich continued. “That means more of your paycheck will be going to them, directly or indirectly.”

…………………………………………………………………………………………

 

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License

Monsanto & DuPont Bury The Hatchet

DuPont Co. (DD), the world’s second- biggest seed company, is sending dozens of former police officers across North America to prevent a practice generations of farmers once took for granted.

Corporate Assault on Our Lives And Our Health

DuPont Sends in Former Cops to Enforce Seed Patents: Commodities

By Jack Kaskey

 

The provider of the best-selling genetically modified soybean seed is looking for evidence of farmers illegally saving them from harvests for replanting next season, which is not allowed under sales contracts. The Wilmington, Delaware-based company is inspecting Canadian fields and will begin in the U.S. next year, said Randy Schlatter, a DuPont senior manager.

Enlarge image

DuPont is protecting its sales of Roundup Ready soybeans, so called because they tolerate being sprayed by Monsanto Co.’s Roundup herbicide. Photographer: Paulo Fridman/Bloomberg

DuPont is protecting its sales of Roundup Ready soybeans, so called because they tolerate being sprayed by Monsanto Co. (MON)’s Roundup herbicide. For years enforcement was done by Monsanto, which created Roundup Ready and dominates the $13.3 billion biotech seed industry, though it’s moving on to a new line of seeds now that patents are expiring. That leaves DuPont to play the bad guy, enforcing alternative patents so cheaper “illegal beans” don’t get planted.

“Farmers are never going to get cheap access to these genetically engineered varieties,” said Charles Benbrook, a research professor at Washington State University’s Center for Sustaining Agriculture and Natural Resources. “The biotech industry has trumped the legitimate economic interests of the farmer again by raising the ante on intellectual property.”

Farmers Sued

Monsanto controls about 28 percent of the soybean market in the U.S., the largest producer and exporter last year, while Dupont has about 36 percent. The weed-killer tolerant seeds and related licenses generated $1.77 billion in sales for Monsanto in the year through August, 13 percent of the company’s total. DuPont had $1.37 billion in soybean revenue last year, 3.6 percent of total sales, according to data compiled by Bloomberg.

The grain is used to make animal feed, cooking oil, tofu and biofuels, and it’s the biggest crop after corn in the U.S.

DuPont dropped 0.5 percent to $43.24 at the close in New York. It has declined 5.6 percent this year, the fifth-worst performer of 31 companies in the S&P 500 Materials Index. (S5MATR) Monsanto has gained 30 percent, the sixth-biggest gain in the index.

Attacks on the modified food industry aren’t new. Farmers criticized Monsanto in the 2008 Oscar-nominated documentary “Food, Inc.” for contracts that keep them from saving seeds. The St. Louis-based company has sued 145 U.S. farmers for saving Roundup Ready soybeans since 1997, winning all 11 cases that went to trial, said Kelli Powers, a Monsanto spokeswoman. The U.S. Supreme Court last month agreed to consider the legality of such planting restrictions.

DuPont’s Challenge

DuPont currently markets Roundup Ready soybeans under license from Monsanto, which is shifting to a newer version of the crop along with most of the rest of the industry. The new seeds produced an average of 4.5 bushels an acre more than the originals this year, Monsanto said today in a statement. Some farmers were anticipating a return to low-cost seed after patents on the original beans expire, Benbrook said.

Monsanto Chief Executive Officer Hugh Grant raised such a prospect in 2010 when he said that growers could replant Roundup Ready soybeans after the patents lapse.

“Our challenge is to get customers to understand the fact that strong intellectual property protection is a benefit that ends up at the customer level,” Schlatter, who works for DuPont’s intellectual property program office, said by phone. His company holds more than 225 soybean patents, he said.

“If we can’t make a profit, we can’t invest and we can’t bring out new products.”

 

Read Full Article Here

Related articles

• Genetically Modified Seed Giant DuPont to Unleash Seed Police (commondreams.org)
• DuPont Sends in Former Cops to Enforce Seed Patents: Commodities (bloomberg.com)
• DuPont sends ex-cops to curb seed-saving (sfgate.com)
• DuPont ‘Fraud’ in Monsanto Seed Case Unsealed by Judge – Bloomberg (bloomberg.com)
• GMO Cops: Biotech Giant Hires Former Cops to ‘Enforce Patents’ (naturalsociety.com)
• DuPont ‘fraud’ in Monsanto seed case unsealed by U.S. judge (bangordailynews.com)
• Jackbooted Corporate Thugs: DuPont Sends in Former Cops to Enforce Seed Patents (sgtreport.com)
• Taking Over for Monsanto, DuPont Hunts Down Farmers for Violating the “Intellectual Property” of GMO Seeds (toolwielder.wordpress.com)
• DuPont Sends in Former Cops to Enforce Seed Patents: Commodities (blacklistednews.com)

Supporters of California’s Proposition 37 are not giving up the fight

Full Speed Ahead for Food Movement, Despite GMO-Labeling Loss

Although a ballot initiative to label foods containing genetically modified organisms failed in California, the organizers behind the measure say their movement is better organized and larger than ever before.

by Cecilia Garza, James Trimarco

 

Organizers with the Yes on 37 campaign drive over the Golden Gate Bridge in a sculpture-topped car. Photo by Lynn Friedman.

Supporters of California’s Proposition 37 are not giving up the fight after Tuesday’s rejection. In fact, they’re saying that the organizing around the initiative helped forge a diffuse group of individuals interested in healthy food into a powerful, organized movement.

While the initiative won urban coastal counties such as Los Angeles and San Francisco, it lost in the state’s central valleys.

“The Organic Consumers Association is a million strong,” said Ronnie Cummins, the founder and director of that group said on a conference call on November 7. “We have 5 million people on our email list and we’re looking forward to continuing this battle.”

Proposition 37 would have required the labeling of foods that contain genetically modified organisms (GMOs) and banned the use of the word “natural” to market products that contain GMOs. While the initiative won urban coastal counties such as Los Angeles and San Francisco, it lost in the state’s central valleys.

“We just didn’t have the funds to compete on the air” in those regions, said Stacy Malkan, media director at California Right to Know. “Many of those voters were getting their news from TV and we couldn’t compete with them.”

Companies like Monsanto, DuPont, and Pepsi poured nearly $50 million dollars into opposing the measure—about seven times what its supporters were able to raise—and spent most of the money on television and radio ads.

Throughout the campaign, the truthfulness of advertisements opposing the measure came into question. At one point, the No on 37 campaign ran an ad that identified Henry I. Miller, an opponent of the measure, as a professor at Stanford University. The campaign was forced to pull the ad after Stanford announced that Dr. Miller was not a professor there.

Multiple strategies going forward

Despite these frustrations, the mood was bright on Wednesday among supporters of Proposition 37, who were already discussing plans to introduce a similar ballot initiative in Washington state in 2013. Such an measure would need 325,000 signatures in order to significantly exceed the requirements for inclusion on the ballot, and organizers on the ground have already gathered half of that, according to Cummins.

 The mood was bright on Wednesday among supporters of Proposition 37, who were already discussing plans to introduce a similar ballot initiative in Washington state in 2013.

Activists are making preparations for a similar effort in Oregon, although signature gathering there has yet to go into full force. Meanwhile, GMO-labeling bills have been introduced in the state legislatures of Connecticut and Vermont, which do not have a ballot initiative process.

Alongside efforts to implement GMO labeling in individual states, the food movement is putting pressure on the federal government. Dave Murphy, co-chair of the Yes on 37 campaign, explained that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration ruled in 1992 that GMO crops are “equivalent” to traditional crops and therefore did not require labeling.

A Farm Bill Only Monsanto Could Love
Three provisions in the bill would make it more difficult to regulate the safety of genetically modified crops.

“We believe that there is evidence that GMO crops are not equivalent and now is the time for the FDA to review that policy,” Murphy said. He added that the “Just Label It” campaign had collected more than one million signatures on a petition asking the FDA for a review and that the Center for Food Safety has said it is prepared to sue if the administration fails to respond.

Another achievement of the Yes on 37 campaign was the education of consumers, Cummins said. People had previously thought that products marketed as “natural” were “almost organic but cheaper.”

The Yes on 37 campaign opened the conversation and changed that, he said. “‘Natural’ is a marketing term and has nothing to do with health or environmental sustainability.”

---

Cecilia Garza and James Trimarco wrote this article for YES! Magazine, a national, nonprofit media organization that fuses powerful ideas with practical actions. James is web editor at YES! and Cecilia is an online intern.

 

Interested?

• California Soccer Moms Face Off against Monsanto
  A grassroots coalition of California citizens has an initiative on the ballot to require the labeling of genetically modified organisms.
• A Farm Bill Only Monsanto Could Love
  Three provisions in the bill would make it more difficult to regulate the safety of genetically modified crops. Consumers fight back with a flurry of organizing.
• Corporate Rule Is Not Inevitable
  7 signs the corporatocracy is losing its legitimacy … and 7 populist tools to help shut it down.

YES! Magazine encourages you to make free use of this article by taking these easy steps. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons License

Related articles

• Need to consider implementing GMO labelling for genetically modified foods (natureandus.wordpress.com)
• Washington County Bans GMO Cultivation (treehugger.com)
• GMO No! Full Speed Ahead for Food Movement (habwwe.wordpress.com)
• Will Obama Fulfill His 2007 Promise to Label GMOs? (Video) (naturalsociety.com)
• How to avoid harmful GMOs in your food supply (habitguide.com)
• Monsanto supported GMO labeling in UK, but is doing everything it can to stop GMO labeling laws from being enacted in California or elsewhere in the U.S. (familysurvivalprotocol.com)
• A Farm Bill Only Monsanto Could Love (familysurvivalprotocol.com)

How do you steal an election? Use electronic voting machines, of course. And then hack the crap out of them until the numbers come out the way you want.

Corporate Assault on Our Lives And Our Health

Are biotech GMO corporations plotting to steal the election on Proposition 37?

 

by Mike Adams, the Health Ranger
Editor of NaturalNews.com

 

 

(NaturalNews) I’m hearing grumblings through the grapevine that an effort may be underway to steal the election against Proposition 37. So far, these are just rumors, but knowing how these evil corporations trying to defeat the ballot measure really operate, there is NOTHING they won’t do to protect their dirty little (agricultural) secrets. Including stealing the election.

Stealing elections is only really possible in close elections, but that’s exactly where Proposition 37 is right now. It’s just barely ahead in the polls: 44% to 42%, with the remainder undecided or neutral. This means Prop 37 is well within the “stealing” range.

How do you steal an election? Use electronic voting machines, of course. And then hack the crap out of them until the numbers come out the way you want. That’s how most clinical trials are conducted, of course, so fudging the numbers is nothing new to the kind of evil corporations that dominate the GMO hellscape.

Electronic voting is a total fraud

Electronic voting machines are being rolled out all across California right now. These machines, as we’ve seen in past elections, are full of bugs and backdoors that allow your vote to be altered at will by whoever owns or influences the voting machine engineers. There is no paper trail, so your electronic vote goes into a vast black hole where it is easily and invisibly altered.

The entire purpose of using electronic voting machines is, of course, to eliminate accurate vote tracking of any kind, thereby allowing elections to be manipulated at will. And if you think evil globalist corporations wouldn’t stoop to this kind of behavior, think again: The “No on 37” campaign has already been caught violating federal law by fabricating fictitious FDA quotes and mailing them out to California voters.

Truthfully, knowing what really goes on behind the scenes, I wouldn’t put it past these people to engage in vote fraud, death threats, extortion, bribery or whatever it takes to defeat Proposition 37. This is the way they routinely conduct business, folks. We are talking about the most evil cabal of demonic, destructive corporations on the planet. Absolutely nothing is out of bounds for them. Think Al Capone… criminal mafia… death threats and professional hackers. That only scratches the surface!

After all, the very products they sell — GMOs, pesticides, Agent Orange — are nothing short of Weapons of Mass Destruction. Stealing an election doesn’t even rank at any level worth noting in their dark, smoky rooms where global domination schemes are hatched and plotted through the use of every evil tactic that has ever been invented.

How you can help prevent Proposition 37 vote fraud

Stealing elections is only possible when the vote results are close, so the best way to ensure evil forces don’t steal the outcome on Proposition 37 is to help us achieve a wide margin of victory at the polls.

This means spreading the word on GMOs and Proposition 37. Visit the YES on 37 website, watch the videos, donate funds and share knowledge with your family and friends. Check out the new music video We Have the Right to Know about GMO, featuring top celebrities and health experts, all commenting on GMOs and singing the song, too. (I contributed background vocals to this song, in case you were curious.)

If you know someone who is into healthy living, honest food and grassroots activism, make sure they get to the polls in California and vote! And make sure they vote YES on 37!

A grassroots victory is within reach

In fact, I personally think the way Californians vote on Prop 37 is far more important than the way they vote for President. Because both Romney and Obama are pro-GMO sellouts who are in bed with big business. Only the People are truly anti-GMO, and that’s why this ballot measure is such an important expression of people power!

Your vote on Proposition 37 is more important than ever! With the biotech criminals running a steady stream of LIES on television, all funded by Monsanto, Dow, Bayer, DuPont and all the other usual suspects, they are managing to trick or confuse a large number of California voters who know nothing about food labeling or GMOs. We’ve got to fight back with sheer numbers!

Together, we can win this vote for food freedom and honest food. It’s the home stretch, folks, and every bit of your effort, donations, activism and good will is needed right now. We are facing off against a terrible, destructive monster, and we are in a position where we can sever its head on November 6th and put an end to its rampage of death and destruction. We must take every opportunity available to achieve victory right now, because another such opportunity may not come along for years.

Spread the word: Vote YES on 37 if you live in California. Defeat GMOs now, at the ballot box, and help overwhelm any attempt by malicious forces to steal the election results via black box voting.

Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/037700_Proposition_37_vote_fraud_GMO.html#ixzz2AXdOMcDN

Related articles

• Are biotech GMO corporations plotting to steal the election on Proposition 37? (dprogram.net)
• Are biotech GMO corporations plotting to steal the election on Proposition 37? (mountainrepublic.net)
• Are Biotech GMO Corporations Plotting to Steal the Election on Proposition 37? (12160.info)
• Hacking Democracy – Hacking Electronic Voting Machines (newsworldwide.wordpress.com)
• American Elections Are A Fraud….The Parties Are Stealing Elections With Electronic Voting Machines…. (mattweidnerlaw.com)
• Do you trust electronic voting machines? (kmov.com)
• Security experts say new electronic voting machines can be hacked (rawstory.com)
• Hack The Vote: Controversial E-Voting Machines Still Widely Used Despite Security Concerns (huffingtonpost.com)

An unidentified entity is waging an all-out war against a popular watchdog website that covers issues related to genetically-modified organisms (GMOs). The website GMWatch.org

Corporate Assault on Our Lives And Our Health

Popular GMO watchdog site targeted with cyber attacks

 

by: Jonathan Benson, staff writer

 

(NaturalNews) An unidentified entity is waging an all-out war against a popular watchdog website that covers issues related to genetically-modified organisms (GMOs). The website GMWatch.org, which describes itself as “an independent organization that seeks to counter the enormous corporate political power and propaganda of the biotech industry and its supporters,” says its servers have been repeatedly attacked in recent days by a distributed denial-of-service (DDoS), which has caused the site to become inaccessible to many of its regular readers.

According to an announcement recently made by GMWatch.org, the website has had sporadic operability and a “reduced homepage” as a result of this latest “cyber attack,” which is one of many that has taken place in the past 14 months. To ensure that its readers have full access to the site’s content, GMWatch.org is directing people to its Twitter page where all the information intended for the primary website is being linked.

That Twitter page can be accessed, even without a registered account, here:
http://twitter.com/gmwatch

“A new campaign of aggressive DDoS attacks reached a new pitch yesterday, but we’re doing everything we possibly can to keep our site online,” says the announcement, which was posted on October 5. “This, of course, is not the first time we’ve been subject to attempts to shut down our site.”

Because of these repeated attempts to take down the main website, GMWatch.org maintains its mailing list data independent of its website. The group’s Powerbase website, which is basically a Wikipedia-style database that contains articles on the people and groups pushing GMOs behind the scenes, is also hosted elsewhere and is reportedly not affected by the latest attack.

You can view the full GMWatch.org announcement here: http://www.gmwatch.org

Is Monsanto behind string of DDoS attacks against GMWatch.org?

With less than a month until Californians get the historic opportunity to mandate that GMOs be labeled at the retail level in their state, it is highly suspicious that GMWatch.org is all of a sudden sustaining some of the worst cyber attacks it has had to deal with yet. Is this a concerted attempt by the biotechnology industry to censor the truth before this important election, or is the timing of the attacks just one giant coincidence?

DDoS attacks typically occur against large, often controversial, entities such as corrupt banks and corporations, not groups like GMWatch.org that exist solely for the purpose of exposing corruption and spreading truth. The only entities that would have any legitimate interest in targeting and destroying the efforts of groups like GMWatch.org are the very corporations that GMWatch.org is trying to expose, which include major industry players like Monsanto, DuPont, BASF, and Dow.

There is no definitive proof as of yet that these entities are indeed responsible for the attacks. But it is quite interesting that they are occurring at a time when the GMO issue is taking center stage in the public debate over honesty in food labeling.

Sources for this article include:

http://www.gmwatch.org

http://searchsecurity.techtarget.com

Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/037659_GMwatch_cyber_attacks_GMOs.html#ixzz2AMCPLF2t

Related articles

• Popular GMO Watchdog Site Targeted With Cyber Attacks – 24October2012 (thegoldenagedaily.wordpress.com)

If Prop 37 passes, it won’t just affect California. It is very likely that other states will not just take note, but adopt similar legislation. Through this legal mechanism, we can essentially label Monsanto out of existence.

Crossroads News : Changes In The World Around Us And Our Place In It

Corporate Assault on Our Lives And Our Health  :  Genetically Modified Organisms (GMO) – Research

Is The End of Monsanto Near? Prop 37 Succeeding as Nations Ban GMO Crops

Anthony Gucciardi
NaturalSociety

Is the end of Monsanto within reach? It has certainly been a rough couple of weeks for the mega corporation as the real dangers surrounding GMOs are being brought to the attention of consumers on a global scale like never before. It all started with the monumental French study finding a serious link between the consumption of Monsanto’s Roundup-drenched GMOs and massive tumors. Being called the ‘most thorough’ research ever published on the real health effects of GMOs, the study led to even larger victories.

After the study not only did France call for a potential worldwide ban on GMOs pending the results of their in-depth analysis, but Russia’s major consumer rights organization announced a ban on both the importation and use of Monsanto’s GMO corn.

Prop 37 Can Label Monsanto Out of Existence

And now, the Proposition to label all GMOs in the state of California is showing massive success. If Prop 37 passes, it won’t just affect California. It is very likely that other states will not just take note, but adopt similar legislation. Through this legal mechanism, we can essential label Monsanto out of existence.  This is possible when considering that the average consumer is actually opposed to GMOs and heavily in favor of proper labeling.

In a major Los Angeles Times poll, registered California voters in favor of labeling outnumber pro-GMO voters by more than a 2-to-1 margin. Altogether, a whopping 61% of those polled reported supporting the Prop 37 labeling initiative. Only 25% reported opposing it.

If GMO-containing products are properly labeled, the simple fact of the matter is that less people will buy them. As of right now, very few people are even aware of what they are putting in their mouth. In fact, if the public knew that they were consuming GMOs which were linked to massive tumors and organ failure, the overwhelming majority would abandon such products. Without labeling, however, they have no idea. The same can also be said for other ingredients like high-fructose corn syrup and aspartame.

As Yes on 37 campaign manager Gary Ruskin explains:

“Monsanto, DuPont, and Coca-Cola do not want Californians to know what’s really in their food and drinks, because they fear consumers will turn away from their genetically engineered ingredients and pesticides that go with them.”

If they knew they were eating mercury in the HFCS and consuming an artificial sweetener with over 42 associated diseases, then major change would occur – change that includes forcing manufacturers to abandon these ingredients in order to stay profitable. And after all, Monsanto’s number one goal is profit. This is a company that has been caught running ‘slave-like’ working conditions in which ‘employees’ were forced to buy only from the company store and were not allowed to leave the area or their pay would be withheld.

If Monsanto’s profits were to plummet, their political reign would likely follow as well. Without an endless amount of cash to throw at crushing Prop 37, already contributing $4 million to fuel anti-labeling propaganda in California, the corporation’s massive grasp on the world of science (continually censoring studies and funding pro-GM research) and politics would virtually cease to exist.

It is essential that we ensure the passing of Prop 37 in a bid to generate the literal end of Monsanto. Once consumers actually know that they’re putting genetically modified creations into their body, real change will occur within the food supply.

Explore More:

1. Leaked: US to Start ‘Trade Wars’ with Nations Opposed to Monsanto, GMO Crops
2. France Maintains Key Ban on Monsanto’s GMO Maize Crops
3. Report: Nature May Soon Overcome Monsanto as ‘Super Rootworms’ Destroy Crops
4. Monsanto’s Top 7 Lies About GMO Labeling and Proposition 37
5. Outrageous: Agent Orange Maker Monsanto Seeks Return to Vietnam for GMO Crops
6. Fake Eco-Friendly Corporations Shell out Millions of $ to Stop GMO Labeling (Infographic)

Read more: http://naturalsociety.com/end-of-monsanto-prop-37-succeeding-nations-ban-gmo-crops/#ixzz2871E506i

Related articles

• Is The End of Monsanto Near? Prop 37 Succeeding as Nations Ban GMO Crops (activistpost.com)
• Is the End of Monsanto Near? Prop 37 Succeeding as Nations Ban GMO Crops (climate-connections.org)
• Anthony Gucciardi ~ Is The End Of Monsanto Near? Prop 37 Succeeding As Nations Ban GMO Crops (shiftfrequency.com)
• Is The End of Monsanto Near? Prop 37 Succeeding as Nations Ban GMO Crops (theintelhub.com)
• The World According to Monsanto – GMO Documentary (familysurvivalprotocol.com)
• Is The End of Monsanto Near? Prop 37 Succeeding as Nations Ban GMO Crops (dprogram.net)
• Four Simultaneous Monsanto Attacks on Organic Food in California and A Monsanto Hostage (sgtreport.com)
• Russia has now officially banned all imports of genetically modified corn, citing concerns from a recent study by French researchers showing rats grew massive cancer tumors when fed Monsanto’s genetically modified corn. (familysurvivalprotocol.com)
• Is The End of Monsanto Near? Prop 37 Succeeding as Nations Ban GMO Crops (pakalertpress.com)

The truth behind the No on 37 campaign from the perspective and experience of an American Farmer

Crossroads News : Changes In The World Around Us And Our Place In It

Community  :  Genetically Modified Organisms (GMO) / Corporate Assault on Our Lives And Our Health

Farmer Debunks Corporate Propaganda Against Proposed Law to Label Genetically Modified Food

Giant corporations like Monsanto, DuPont, Dow, Pepsi and Coke have poured $25 million into the No on 37 campaign.

I’ve been a farmer for more than 40 years. While I no longer live or farm in California, I do co-manage 120 acres of farmland in Vermont, and I know that a GMO labeling law passed in California will have widespread implications for consumers and farmers in every state in the country. As a farmer who has experience in both conventional and organic farming, I’m compelled to address the anti-labeling campaign’s so-called “concerns” for farmers and consumers.

But first, make no mistake: The folks who are  running and funding the campaign against California’s Proposition 37, the Nov. 6 citizens’ ballot initiative that would require mandatory labeling of GMOs, have never worked on behalf of small farmers or consumers. Why would we think they are suddenly on our side? Heading up the campaign are the same folks who, backed by Big Tobacco, fought anti-smoking initiatives in California. They are the same people who, with a little help from Big Oil, tried to repeal California’s clean energy and climate laws. The $25 million that has so far poured into the “No on 37” campaign comes from huge biotech, chemical and food processing corporations (Monsanto, DuPont, Dow AgriScience, Pepsi, Coca-Cola). These are all companies whose primary motivation is profit, not the protection of consumers or farmers.

Here’s my farmer’s-eye view of the propaganda coming out of the No on 37 campaign, which by the way is dubiously named: Stop the Deceptive Food Labeling Scheme.

Propaganda statement #1:

The initiative would close off opportunities for farmers and food producers who might want to take advantage of future advances in crops bred for disease and pest resistance, drought tolerance, improved growth, nutrition, taste or other benefits.

This is perhaps the most outrageous of the No on 37 campaign’s purported concerns, and it’s directed at us, the farmers. The GMO giants claim to be concerned that we will not get a chance to grow GMO crops. Really? After suing and harassing thousands of farmers and driving small seed dealers out of business and into court, it is beyond disingenuous for Monsanto and the GMO gang to feign concern for our interests. I can assure them that we farmers are more afraid of Monsanto, DuPont and Syngenta than the biotech giants are at the prospect of losing their genetically altered seed.

Farmers in several states have tried to pass farmer protection laws against the spillage and drift of GMO seed and pollen. These laws were designed to respond to the fact that biotech companies can sue farmers for patent infringement if GMO crops inadvertently sprout up as “weeds” on their farms – the result of pollen drift or seed spillage from a neighboring or nearby farm that grows GMO crops. Most of us farmers see this differently. We believe that when GMO seeds spill onto our land, or pollen from GMO crops drifts into our non-GMO crops and contaminates them, this constitutes trespassing, not patent theft. In spite of this trespass, Monsanto alone has brought  136 cases  against more than 400 farmers. Thousands more U.S. farmers have been threatened with lawsuits by Monsanto.

Farmers growing cotton, corn, soy, and canola are in a tight spot because biotech companies have bought a majority of the seed corporations in order to control what seed can be grown. In the last several years, more than 90% of the seed available to farmers for these four crops has been genetically modified. So if a farmer wants to grow any of these commodity crops, he’s forced to grow the GMO variety –or not grow them at all.

Giant corporations like Monsanto, DuPont, Dow, Pepsi and Coke have poured $25 million into the No on 37 campaign.

Propaganda statement #2:

To avoid labeling a product as non-GMO will require farmers, food processors, and food distributors to document that ingredients are not produced through biotechnology.

This massive new paperwork and record keeping requirement – on tens of thousands of crops and food products – will add significant cost and bureaucracy for farmers and food producers.

Exaggeration upon exaggeration. The regulation and record-keeping process is  not that difficult and there are  not tens of thousands of GE crops grown in California. When our farm first converted to organic production we were leery of the regulations and the requirements for record-keeping and documentation for organic certification, so we understand the trepidation farmers have over regulations and record-keeping. Now, however, it is a regular part of our routine. Our staff regularly documents our growing and sales practices on computers, which makes it easy to track and segregate inputs and products if necessary.

While the organic regulations are strict, their existence provides the consumer and the farmers with a guarantee that a third-party inspector is reviewing the farmer’s records and growing and sales practices, and are rooting out mistakes or any instances of deliberate cheating. Excellent and easy-to-use record-keeping  computer programs  are available for small, medium, and large farms.  Given our experience, we believe that creating an accurate paper trail for organic, GMO-free, or naturally grown products should not be seen as daunting by farmers or be used as a reason to not label GMO products. And let’s not forget – in almost 50 other countries, this process is required – and executed without undue burden on farmers.

As for the issue of “tens of thousands” of GMO crops in California, that’s simply not true. Currently, genetically engineered cotton, corn, sugar beets, soy, a bit of canola, and experimental alfalfa are grown commercially in California. These same crops are the only ones grown on large acreages in the U.S. So there are not thousands of GMO crops that are grown anyplace in the U.S. or the rest of the world. There are, however, tens of thousands of products that have genetically modified ingredients. About 75% of our processed food has GMO ingredients—and processed food accounts for 80% of the food U.S. consumers eat. That should give consumers pause.

Propaganda statement #3:

This provision (Proposition 37) would significantly impact farmers’ ability to market their foods as natural, even if there are no GE ingredients. So, for example, under the measure a raw almond could be marketed as “natural” but the same almond that has been salted and canned could not. Apples could be labeled “naturally grown,” but applesauce made from the same apples could not be advertised as “natural applesauce” simply because the apples were cooked.

If almonds are plunged into a salt bath, no matter how you look at it, it’s not natural. When do almonds ever do that naturally? When almonds have tamari or salt or garlic added they are not natural. When natural apples are made into applesauce, they are cooked, and almost all the non-organic applesauce producers add preservatives. Is this applesauce natural? This begs the question as to what is “natural.”

Since there are no government or industry guidelines or regulations governing what is or is not “natural,” food processors have stamped the word “natural” on everything from corn flakes to processed meats to shampoo. Biotech companies, cosmetic companies, and food processors all want to keep up the illusion that processed foods are “natural” and thus safer than non-natural products. Why? Because they can charge consumers more for anything with the word “natural” on it. Sales of “natural” foods have reached about $50 billion a year, compared with $32 billion in sales of certified organics.

Article Continues

Related articles

• Monsanto’s GMO Nightmare is out of control with both the blessing and the backing of the US Government (familysurvivalprotocol.com)
• Monsanto’s Top 7 Lies About GMO Labeling and Proposition 37 (naturalsociety.com)
• Monsanto’s Top 7 Lies About GMO Labeling and Proposition 37 (activistpost.com)
• Monsanto Allowed to Put Genetically Modified Food on Your Plate (blogs.lawyers.com)
• The war against GMO labeling (therealfoodchannel.com)
• Monsanto Dishes Out 4.2 Million to Squash California GMO Labeling Initiative (dprogram.net)
• Monsanto Dishes Out $4.2 Million to Squash California GMO Labeling Initiative (activistpost.com)
• California’s Prop. 37: Are GMO Labels a Scarlet Letter? (science.kqed.org)

Perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) : It’s in your cookware, your clothing, furniture, carpets, popcorn bags and even in your food! It remains indefinitely in the environment and even gets stuck in your body

Health And Wellness Report

Medical Research / Diseases  :  Chemicals & Poisons in Our Foods

Deadly Teflon chemical – Decades of cover-ups

by: Craig Stellpflug

(NaturalNews) It’s in your cookware, your clothing, furniture, carpets, popcorn bags and even in your food! It’s perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and it remains indefinitely in the environment and even gets stuck in your body. PFOA is a toxicant and known carcinogen that has been detected in the blood of more than 98% of the US population. Exposure to this chemical has been associated with increased cholesterol, uric acid levels, preeclampsia, heart disease, liver damage, thyroid trouble, neurological disorders, chronic kidney disease and kidney cancer.

High levels of exposure to the Teflon (a DuPont registered trademark) chemical PFOA causes the risk of testicular cancer to skyrocket by 170 percent.

DuPont’s plant on the Ohio River has used PFOA since the 1950s to make chemicals used in the production of nonstick products, oil-resistant paper packaging like hamburger wrappers, and stain-resistant textiles. PFOA is pretty much in anything wrinkle-free, heat-proof, stain-resistant, and more.

Children downstream from a DuPont chemical plant on the Ohio River carry PFOA in their blood prompting one of the first studies of its effects on kids. Out of more than 10,000 kids ages 1 to 17, those with the highest levels were more likely to have thyroid disease. Of course, these results only support previous findings from studies with adults.

Thyroid hormones play critical roles in metabolism, growth and brain development. These hormones are especially important during fetal development and early childhood with small changes in thyroid hormone levels during these developmental periods affecting IQ and motor skill development in children.

DuPont fined for Teflon cover-up

In June 2005 there was a $5 billion class-action lawsuit filed against Dupont for failing to alert the public about over 20 years of known health problems associated with PFOAs. The Environmental Protection Agency later announced it would slap the $25 billion Teflon maker with a mere $16.5 million for two decades’ worth of covering up studies that showed it was polluting drinking water and harming newborn babies with an indestructible chemical. The fine was the largest administrative fine the EPA had ever levied under a flimsy toxic chemical law and the fine was less than half of one percent of DuPont’s profits from Teflon at the time and a mere fraction of the $313 million the agency could have imposed.

The Environmental Working Group (EWG.org), said the penalty highlighted the federal government’s weak hand in dealing with industrial polluters. “What’s the appropriate fine for a $25 billion company that for decades hid vital health information about a toxic chemical that now contaminates every man, woman and child in the United States?” Group president and co-founder Ken Cook said. “We’re pretty sure it’s not $16 million, even if that is a record amount under a federal law that everyone acknowledges is extremely weak.”

Of course DuPont acknowledges no liability for failure to report its 1981 discovery that a compound used to make Teflon had contaminated the placenta and bloodstream of a West Virginia worker’s unborn child. Other complaints allege that DuPont withheld information for years about unexpected contamination in the blood of workers, and pollution releases that eventually contaminated water supplies serving thousands in West Virginia and Ohio. DuPont’s official position is that they believe there are no human health effects associated with their Teflon product.

Cash is king

DuPont is one of the largest chemical companies in the world. Between 2008 and 2010, it reported over $2 billion in profits, paid no federal income taxes, increased its executive compensations by a whopping 188% and spent almost $14 million on lobbying for more corporate friendly laws. DuPont is the nation’s only manufacturer of PFOA. So why is it so difficult to stop this madness? Because Americans still buy their products and cash is king.

Sources for this article

http://www.environmentalhealthnews.org
http://ehp03.niehs.nih.gov
http://www.usatoday.com
http://publicampaign.org

About the author:
Craig Stellpflug is a Cancer Nutrition Specialist, Lifestyle Coach and Neuro Development Consultant at Healing Pathways Medical Clinic, Scottsdale, AZ. http://www.healingpathwayscancerclinic.com/ With 17 years of clinical experience working with both brain disorders and cancer, Craig has seen first-hand the devastating effects of vaccines and pharmaceuticals on the human body and has come to the conclusion that a natural lifestyle and natural remedies are the true answers to health and vibrant living. You can find his daily health blog at www.blog.realhealthtalk.com and his articles and radio show archives at www.realhealthtalk.com

Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/036887_Teflon_PFOA_non-stick_cookware.html#ixzz24WIjmEPJ

Related articles

• 19. Deadly Teflon chemical – Decades of cover-ups (12160.info)
• Deadly Teflon chemical – Decades of cover-ups (federaljack.com)
• C8 linked to thyroid, bowel disease (wvgazette.com)
• Stain repellent chemicals linked to liver damage in people (junkscience.com)
• The Teflon-Coated Catch 22 of Kitchen Tools (blogher.com)
• Possible Link Between Common Consumer Products and Thyroid Disease (naturalsociety.com)
• FDA Lags on Serious Health Threat in Your Food Packaging (ecowatch.org)
• DuPont’s Narrow Economic Moat (seekingalpha.com)