This past May, Georgia passed a new immigration law which makes it illegal to, among other things, knowingly transport illegal immigrants. Furthermore, it gives police the authority to demand immigration documents from criminal suspects and, if suspects do not produce these documents, the new law grants police the power to jail them, thus begining the federal deportation process.
Declaring that "states must act to defend their taxpayers," Georgia governor Nathan Deal made it clear in May that the law was meant to rid his state of the scourge of illegal immigration (1). The line of reasoning is not a new one: illegal immigrants are a drain on all law abiding citizens, because they draw on public services without paying all of the taxes required of legal residents.
Of course, the issue is not nearly as simple as such reasoning makes it out to be.
As lawmakers in Georgia have painfully discovered, illegal immigrants also bring a number of direct benefits to legal Americans, and when you chase illegals away these benefits disappear too. Georgia is now suffering a dire shortage of farm labor, causing produce to literally rot in the fields for the lack of manpower necessary to harvest it. In fact, it is estimated that Georgian farmers are now short by at least 11,000 workers (2).
"But wait!" you may find yourself thinking as Republican lawmakers in Georgia did, "there must be more than enough unemployed legal residents to take the place of these illegal immigrants. That's the problem with illegals: they take our jobs! Now that we've chased them out, good, honest, law-abiding Gerogians can finally find employment again."
Not so.
The fact is that most of these 11,000 jobs pay 7, 8, or maybe 9 dollars an hour for exhausting work done in the blistering heat. Almost none include health insurance and only a third offer some kind of worker's compensation (3). Legal Americans are simply unaccustomed and largely unwilling to work that hard for such little compensation. If Georgian farmers were to raise the pay rates of these positions it would not allow them to compete with farmers from other states who, surprise, rely on illegal labor to minimize costs.
Today, a federal judge in Atlanta proclaimed an injunction on the two provisions of the law listed in the first paragraph of this post. Georgian lawmakers had earlier vowed to appeal any such decision, so the outcome remains to be seen.
What is already clear, however, is that illegal immigration brings with it a complex web of advantages and disadvantages. One of the greatest of these advantages is the incredibly cheap price of food in the United States relative to most other countries. While global food prices continue to rise, contributing to riots and revolutions throughout the world, Americans have, for the most part, dogged the bullet. This is because we rely on illegal and often abused labor throughout our food production system. To categorically villanize illegal immigrants is to display an embarrassing lack of understanding of our nation's economy.
__________
1) http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/14/us/14georgia.html
2) http://blogs.ajc.com/jay-bookman-blog/2011/06/17/gas-farm-labor-crisis-playing-out-as-planned/
3) Ibid.
Monday, June 27, 2011
Wednesday, June 22, 2011
Rising Food Prices Around the World
A global opinion poll conducted by the independent research firm GlobeScan and released by Oxfam on June 14th found some disheartening results having to do with hunger and rising food prices. The survey, which was conducted in 17 countries and had 16,421 respondents, reported that 54% of people questioned globally answered that they were not eating the same food as they did two years prior. Of this 54%, 39% reported that their diet had changed because of the rising cost of food and 33% identified health reasons. In the U.S., 56% of those surveyed said that they were not eating the same food as two years ago, and 31% cited food prices while 49% cited health reasons. Furthermore, 8% of Americans surveyed answered that they sometimes, rarely, or never had enough food to eat on a daily basis (1).
While it is encouraging that a considerable number of people are changing their diet with health in mind, it is clear that rising food prices are seriously affecting people's access to food, both domestically and globally. This should not be shocking to anyone - rising food prices have been a significant issue recently. Remember the riots in Haiti in 2008, or, in current events, the so-called "Arab Spring"?
Increasing food costs are changing the world, and this will likely remain the case over the coming years. According to a joint report released by the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development and the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization, high global prices are expected to persist for at least the next decade (2). This report predicts that the real prices of cereal will be 20% higher, and the real prices of meat will be 30% higher in the coming decade than they were in the last.
Yesterday, the agricultural ministers of the G-20 met in Paris and reached an accord to combat these rising food prices. They agreed to create a transparent market for tracking global food supplies, establish emergency food reserves, further research new wheat strains, and create a rapid response system for dealing with drought in producer countries (3). This is an important agreement, especially because the new transparent market will hopefully prevent panic induced price spikes by providing better information on food supplies. Oxfam, however, has criticized the accord for being too minimal. As Jean-Cyril Dagorn of Oxfam said, "Fixing the global food system and ending the food price crisis requires major surgery, yet the G-20 produced little more than a sticking plaster" (4).
It is not clear specifically what Mr. Dagorn has in mind in the way of "major surgery," but it is clear that our global food system can only be fixed through a multifaceted approach. A number of factors are contributing to the rise in food prices, not the least of which are severe weather and the rising price of oil.
There are other less visible factors, however, that are not mentioned along with such hot-button issues. For example, as many residents of Memphis know first-hand, food is far more expensive in food deserts than in communities that have grocery stores. Without a grocery store nearby, residents of food deserts turn to corner stores, which are always more expensive.
Furthermore, we must consider that not only our problems, but also our solutions should be multi-faceted. For example, one way of alleviating the strain put on food prices by higher oil prices is, of course, to work to lower oil prices in the short term and develop alternate energy technologies in the long term.
Another solution, however, is to cease transporting our food over vast distances when it could be grown locally. Or, even more importantly, we can use less energy in our food system by avoiding processed foods. The large majority of energy costs in food production actually come from processing and packaging, not from transportation.
Increased supervision of our food system, no matter how "transparent," is not enough to remedy its most pressing problems. We need fundamental change.
__________
1) http://www.oxfamamerica.org/press/pressreleases/globescan-survey-rising-food-prices-are-changing-what-we-eat
2) http://ictsd.org/i/news/bridgesweekly/109150/
3) http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=137363032
4) Ibid.
While it is encouraging that a considerable number of people are changing their diet with health in mind, it is clear that rising food prices are seriously affecting people's access to food, both domestically and globally. This should not be shocking to anyone - rising food prices have been a significant issue recently. Remember the riots in Haiti in 2008, or, in current events, the so-called "Arab Spring"?
Increasing food costs are changing the world, and this will likely remain the case over the coming years. According to a joint report released by the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development and the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization, high global prices are expected to persist for at least the next decade (2). This report predicts that the real prices of cereal will be 20% higher, and the real prices of meat will be 30% higher in the coming decade than they were in the last.
Yesterday, the agricultural ministers of the G-20 met in Paris and reached an accord to combat these rising food prices. They agreed to create a transparent market for tracking global food supplies, establish emergency food reserves, further research new wheat strains, and create a rapid response system for dealing with drought in producer countries (3). This is an important agreement, especially because the new transparent market will hopefully prevent panic induced price spikes by providing better information on food supplies. Oxfam, however, has criticized the accord for being too minimal. As Jean-Cyril Dagorn of Oxfam said, "Fixing the global food system and ending the food price crisis requires major surgery, yet the G-20 produced little more than a sticking plaster" (4).
It is not clear specifically what Mr. Dagorn has in mind in the way of "major surgery," but it is clear that our global food system can only be fixed through a multifaceted approach. A number of factors are contributing to the rise in food prices, not the least of which are severe weather and the rising price of oil.
There are other less visible factors, however, that are not mentioned along with such hot-button issues. For example, as many residents of Memphis know first-hand, food is far more expensive in food deserts than in communities that have grocery stores. Without a grocery store nearby, residents of food deserts turn to corner stores, which are always more expensive.
Furthermore, we must consider that not only our problems, but also our solutions should be multi-faceted. For example, one way of alleviating the strain put on food prices by higher oil prices is, of course, to work to lower oil prices in the short term and develop alternate energy technologies in the long term.
Another solution, however, is to cease transporting our food over vast distances when it could be grown locally. Or, even more importantly, we can use less energy in our food system by avoiding processed foods. The large majority of energy costs in food production actually come from processing and packaging, not from transportation.
Increased supervision of our food system, no matter how "transparent," is not enough to remedy its most pressing problems. We need fundamental change.
__________
1) http://www.oxfamamerica.org/press/pressreleases/globescan-survey-rising-food-prices-are-changing-what-we-eat
2) http://ictsd.org/i/news/bridgesweekly/109150/
3) http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=137363032
4) Ibid.
Monday, June 13, 2011
The Good Sense of South Korea
Even if our government is ignoring the most pressing health risks posed by industrial agriculture, it's nice to see that other nations are being proactive...
South Korea recently passed a complete ban on the mixing of antibiotics with animal feed (1). Feeding animals with low levels of antibiotics has become widespread practice throughout the agriculture industry because of the unhealthy conditions that most livestock are raised in. In order to stave off the disease and infection that would otherwise result from grossly overcrowded living conditions, many farmers maintain a steady supply of antibiotics in their animal feed. Rather than make our food safer, however, this practice creates an even greater danger: the cultivation of antibiotic-resistant pathogens.
The CDC has linked this practice of feeding animals on sub-therapeutic levels of antibiotics to the rise of antibiotic-resistant pathogens. Furthermore, it has found that these pathogens affect humans as well as animals (2).
To understand just how frighteningly prevalent this practice is, consider that eighty percent of antibiotics used in the U.S. go to animals rather than humans, and that North Carolina alone uses more antibiotics on animals than the entire country does on humans (3).
Of course, the bad news for South Koreans is that despite their good sense, this ban on antibiotics in animal feed won't do much to prevent the development of antibiotic-resistant pathogens world-wide. As long as the United States continues this practice, not only our country, but the whole world is endangered. It is time that we recognized the part we play in advancing this common peril to humanity.
__________
1) http://www.allaboutfeed.net/news/south-korea-to-ban-antibiotics-in-animal-feed-11846.html
2) http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/eid/vol10no6/04-0403.htm
3) http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/12/opinion/12kristof.html?src=me&ref=general
South Korea recently passed a complete ban on the mixing of antibiotics with animal feed (1). Feeding animals with low levels of antibiotics has become widespread practice throughout the agriculture industry because of the unhealthy conditions that most livestock are raised in. In order to stave off the disease and infection that would otherwise result from grossly overcrowded living conditions, many farmers maintain a steady supply of antibiotics in their animal feed. Rather than make our food safer, however, this practice creates an even greater danger: the cultivation of antibiotic-resistant pathogens.
The CDC has linked this practice of feeding animals on sub-therapeutic levels of antibiotics to the rise of antibiotic-resistant pathogens. Furthermore, it has found that these pathogens affect humans as well as animals (2).
To understand just how frighteningly prevalent this practice is, consider that eighty percent of antibiotics used in the U.S. go to animals rather than humans, and that North Carolina alone uses more antibiotics on animals than the entire country does on humans (3).
Of course, the bad news for South Koreans is that despite their good sense, this ban on antibiotics in animal feed won't do much to prevent the development of antibiotic-resistant pathogens world-wide. As long as the United States continues this practice, not only our country, but the whole world is endangered. It is time that we recognized the part we play in advancing this common peril to humanity.
__________
1) http://www.allaboutfeed.net/news/south-korea-to-ban-antibiotics-in-animal-feed-11846.html
2) http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/eid/vol10no6/04-0403.htm
3) http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/12/opinion/12kristof.html?src=me&ref=general
Friday, June 10, 2011
German E. Coli Update
Well, the German authorities have changed their minds once again. They are now certain that the E. Coli outbreak originated at the same organic sprouts farm that they had just recently cleared of any involvement in the issue. Tests have still NOT found E. coli on any sprouts from the farm, but German health officials claim that enough epidemiological evidence exists to link the outbreak to the sprouts. Specifically, they have linked a number of the E. coli cases to twenty-six restaurants that received sprouts from the farm (1). The U.S. Center for Disease Control, however, is more reluctant to use this evidence as certain proof of a link between the farm and the outbreak, and they have urged German officials to be cautious.
Indeed, it is difficult not to be wary of the German authorities' latest conclusion (First E. coli and then Roundup, all in one week!). This is not the first time that they have been "certain" of the outbreak's source, although it looks like it will be the last. What was already a tragic event for Germany has also become a national embarrassment and health officials were desperate to pinpoint its cause. The epidemiological evidence they found points to a high likelihood that the outbreak originated at the organic sprouts farm, although it cannot provide the certainty that E. coli positive tests would have done. Nevertheless, it is not this blogs place to dispute the conclusions of German health officials.
Regardless of whether or not the outbreak originated at an organic farm, it must be reiterated that industrial scale agriculture, not organic vs. conventional farming, is the true issue here. The arguments for this can be found in our post dated June 8th. Food contamination has occurred, and likely will continue to occur, at both organic and conventional farms. It is our cumbersome and corporate-dominated global food system, however, which turns these contaminations into international outbreaks.
Furthermore, when food is produced and consumed locally, farmers have a reputation to uphold in the surrounding community. If their produce becomes contaminated they cannot hide behind an impersonal food system. They are directly accountable for the quality and safety of their produce and it becomes a financial, not to mention moral, necessity that they avoid outbreaks of this kind. In an industrial scale food system accountability is diluted and consumers have far less knowledge about where there food is coming from and, thus, less power to make informed decision about what they eat. In this situation it often seems to consumers that the only way to be safe is to adhere to blanket condemnations of organic farming or bean sprouts, for instance.
Let us not be fooled into believing that industrial-conventional agriculture, which often utilizes harmful chemicals, is our best bet for safe food. There is no other more ironic conclusion that we could arrive at from this E. coli outbreak. Now more than ever, we need local quality, local safety, and local accountability.
__________
1) http://www.foxnews.com/health/2011/06/10/germany-confirms-sprouts-to-blame-for-killer-bacteria/
Indeed, it is difficult not to be wary of the German authorities' latest conclusion (First E. coli and then Roundup, all in one week!). This is not the first time that they have been "certain" of the outbreak's source, although it looks like it will be the last. What was already a tragic event for Germany has also become a national embarrassment and health officials were desperate to pinpoint its cause. The epidemiological evidence they found points to a high likelihood that the outbreak originated at the organic sprouts farm, although it cannot provide the certainty that E. coli positive tests would have done. Nevertheless, it is not this blogs place to dispute the conclusions of German health officials.
Regardless of whether or not the outbreak originated at an organic farm, it must be reiterated that industrial scale agriculture, not organic vs. conventional farming, is the true issue here. The arguments for this can be found in our post dated June 8th. Food contamination has occurred, and likely will continue to occur, at both organic and conventional farms. It is our cumbersome and corporate-dominated global food system, however, which turns these contaminations into international outbreaks.
Furthermore, when food is produced and consumed locally, farmers have a reputation to uphold in the surrounding community. If their produce becomes contaminated they cannot hide behind an impersonal food system. They are directly accountable for the quality and safety of their produce and it becomes a financial, not to mention moral, necessity that they avoid outbreaks of this kind. In an industrial scale food system accountability is diluted and consumers have far less knowledge about where there food is coming from and, thus, less power to make informed decision about what they eat. In this situation it often seems to consumers that the only way to be safe is to adhere to blanket condemnations of organic farming or bean sprouts, for instance.
Let us not be fooled into believing that industrial-conventional agriculture, which often utilizes harmful chemicals, is our best bet for safe food. There is no other more ironic conclusion that we could arrive at from this E. coli outbreak. Now more than ever, we need local quality, local safety, and local accountability.
__________
1) http://www.foxnews.com/health/2011/06/10/germany-confirms-sprouts-to-blame-for-killer-bacteria/
Wednesday, June 8, 2011
A Roundup Update
A report released on Tuesday by a group of European scientists and professors thoroughly demonstrates that industry and government have been aware from at least the 1980s that glyphosate, the chemical on which Monsanto's Roundup weed killer is based, has repeatedly been shown in laboratory tests to cause serious birth defects in frogs, chickens, rats and rabbits. These birth defects, along with endocrine damage and cancer, were found when test animals were subjected to levels of glyphosate that are comparable to those found in food and the environment in the form of pesticide residue.
Furthermore, the report details emerging evidence of Roundup's toxicity to humans in South America, where it is used extensively. According to the report, one study has found glyphosate to be toxic to human cells, and doctors, activists, and scientists in South America are reporting increased rates of human birth defects in areas of high Roundup use.
Monsanto, DuPont, and a number of other corporate interests have been covering this up with the help of the incompetence, and possible cooperation, of the German Federal Office for Consumer Protection and Food Safety (BVL). Roundup was due to be reevaluated by the EU in 2012, but this date was recently pushed back to 2015.
The conclusions of this report, especially concerning the BVL's blatant disregard of scientific findings, are shocking. They demonstrate why public, independent, and peer-reviewed science regarding pesticides and transgenic crops is so vital to public health. These corporations are out to make a profit, apparently at whatever cost. When government fails to protect consumers, who will?
The report can be found at:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/57277946/RoundupandBirthDefectsv5
And an article outlining its findings is located at:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/06/07/roundup-birth-defects-herbicide-regulators_n_872862.html?ref=fb&src=sp
Furthermore, the report details emerging evidence of Roundup's toxicity to humans in South America, where it is used extensively. According to the report, one study has found glyphosate to be toxic to human cells, and doctors, activists, and scientists in South America are reporting increased rates of human birth defects in areas of high Roundup use.
Monsanto, DuPont, and a number of other corporate interests have been covering this up with the help of the incompetence, and possible cooperation, of the German Federal Office for Consumer Protection and Food Safety (BVL). Roundup was due to be reevaluated by the EU in 2012, but this date was recently pushed back to 2015.
The conclusions of this report, especially concerning the BVL's blatant disregard of scientific findings, are shocking. They demonstrate why public, independent, and peer-reviewed science regarding pesticides and transgenic crops is so vital to public health. These corporations are out to make a profit, apparently at whatever cost. When government fails to protect consumers, who will?
The report can be found at:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/57277946/RoundupandBirthDefectsv5
And an article outlining its findings is located at:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/06/07/roundup-birth-defects-herbicide-regulators_n_872862.html?ref=fb&src=sp
E. Coli, Organic Farms, and Industrial Agriculture
The outbreak of an uncommonly toxic strain of E. coli in Germany has been in the news for a week now. This rare strain of the bacteria has killed at least twenty-three people in Europe and has made over two-thousand quite ill. In their rush to pinpoint the cause of the outbreak, German authorities first labeled cucumbers grown in Spain as the culprit. These same authorities retracted this accusation only a few days later, but enough time had passed to cost Spanish farmers hundreds of millions of dollars in lost sales and rotted crops. Still scrambling to locate the origin of the outbreak, German authorities next pointed to sprouts grown at an organic farm in northern Germany. On Monday, however, they once again backtracked on their claims after tests were unable to find any instances of E. coli bacteria on samples taken from the farm (1).
So, organic farmers can breathe freely once more, safe in the knowledge that they will not be wrongly implicated in the deadliest E. coli outbreak in modern history, right?
Wrong.
Even though German authorities have retracted their accusation, it seems that, like the innocent farmers in Spain, organic farmers have already suffered undue damage to their public perception. For example, an article posted on the Reuters website on Monday raises questions about the safety of organic farming (2). In fact, the article quotes a British professor of public health as saying that organic produce carries an extra risk because organic farms do not use non-organic chemical fertilizer. It boggles the mind to attempt to understand how produce can be more dangerous because it is not treated with poisonous chemicals!
The suggestion seems to be that the use of manure on organic farms causes a heightened risk of an E. coli outbreak, because E. coli is know to originate in animal intestines. This is wrong for a number of reasons. First of all, non-organic farms also use manure, but they are not regulated to the same degree. In fact, the federal regulation concerning the use of manure on organic farms is the strictest of its kind (3). It requires, for instance, that manure on organic farms be composted long enough to kill all bacteria. It comes as no surprise then that a study conducted at the University of Minnesota in 2004 concluded that organic produce was no more likely to be contaminated by E. coli than non-organic produce (4). Moreover, of all sprout recalls in the U.S. over the last two and a half years, ninety percent have come from non-organic farms (5).
Ultimately, the problem is twofold. First of all, evidence suggests that the wide-spread practice in conventional (i.e. non-organic) farming of feeding cows high-grain rations rather than the grass they were evolved to eat may be tied to increased instances of E. coli. These high-grain rations raise the pH in the cows’ rumen, which seems to lead to the creation of more deadly strains of E. coli (6).
On a much greater level, the recent E. coli outbreak is a symptom not of organic farming, nor even of conventional farming per se, but rather of the enormous scale of our industrial agricultural system. Our food system is not too big to fail; it is too big NOT to fail. When our food must travel a long and complicated path simply to reach our tables this not only increases the likelihood that somewhere along the way it will be contaminated, it also makes it difficult to trace the source of any contamination. This is evidenced by the recent blundering of the German authorities. Simply put, when our food is grown locally we know exactly where it comes from and we can quickly pinpoint and isolate any contamination.
__________
1) http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/E/EU_CONTAMINATED_VEGETABLES_EUROPE?CTIME=2011-06-05-07-43-44&SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT
2) http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/06/06/us-ecoli-beansprouts-idUSTRE7552N720110606
3) http://www.ota.com/organic/foodsafety/ecoli.html
4) Ibid.
5) http://www.cornucopia.org/2011/06/news-advisory-90-sprout-contamination-conventional-not-organic-linked-to-factory-farm-livestock-production/
6) Ibid.
So, organic farmers can breathe freely once more, safe in the knowledge that they will not be wrongly implicated in the deadliest E. coli outbreak in modern history, right?
Wrong.
Even though German authorities have retracted their accusation, it seems that, like the innocent farmers in Spain, organic farmers have already suffered undue damage to their public perception. For example, an article posted on the Reuters website on Monday raises questions about the safety of organic farming (2). In fact, the article quotes a British professor of public health as saying that organic produce carries an extra risk because organic farms do not use non-organic chemical fertilizer. It boggles the mind to attempt to understand how produce can be more dangerous because it is not treated with poisonous chemicals!
The suggestion seems to be that the use of manure on organic farms causes a heightened risk of an E. coli outbreak, because E. coli is know to originate in animal intestines. This is wrong for a number of reasons. First of all, non-organic farms also use manure, but they are not regulated to the same degree. In fact, the federal regulation concerning the use of manure on organic farms is the strictest of its kind (3). It requires, for instance, that manure on organic farms be composted long enough to kill all bacteria. It comes as no surprise then that a study conducted at the University of Minnesota in 2004 concluded that organic produce was no more likely to be contaminated by E. coli than non-organic produce (4). Moreover, of all sprout recalls in the U.S. over the last two and a half years, ninety percent have come from non-organic farms (5).
Ultimately, the problem is twofold. First of all, evidence suggests that the wide-spread practice in conventional (i.e. non-organic) farming of feeding cows high-grain rations rather than the grass they were evolved to eat may be tied to increased instances of E. coli. These high-grain rations raise the pH in the cows’ rumen, which seems to lead to the creation of more deadly strains of E. coli (6).
On a much greater level, the recent E. coli outbreak is a symptom not of organic farming, nor even of conventional farming per se, but rather of the enormous scale of our industrial agricultural system. Our food system is not too big to fail; it is too big NOT to fail. When our food must travel a long and complicated path simply to reach our tables this not only increases the likelihood that somewhere along the way it will be contaminated, it also makes it difficult to trace the source of any contamination. This is evidenced by the recent blundering of the German authorities. Simply put, when our food is grown locally we know exactly where it comes from and we can quickly pinpoint and isolate any contamination.
__________
1) http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/E/EU_CONTAMINATED_VEGETABLES_EUROPE?CTIME=2011-06-05-07-43-44&SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT
2) http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/06/06/us-ecoli-beansprouts-idUSTRE7552N720110606
3) http://www.ota.com/organic/foodsafety/ecoli.html
4) Ibid.
5) http://www.cornucopia.org/2011/06/news-advisory-90-sprout-contamination-conventional-not-organic-linked-to-factory-farm-livestock-production/
6) Ibid.
Thursday, June 2, 2011
The Roundup Ready Disaster
A mixture of good and bad news on the national food policy front. Let’s get the bad news out of the way first before turning to some more encouraging information...
As you may be aware, the U.S. Department of Agriculture, at the behest of the Obama administration, approved the use of a new strain of genetically engineered alfalfa seed in January of this year. This transgenic seed, which was developed by Monsanto, is called “Roundup Ready” alfalfa because it is designed to be resistant to the corporation’s widely used weed killer, Roundup. While this initially appeared to be a windfall for farmers who use transgenic seed, it has become clear that Roundup Ready alfalfa is almost certainly going to prove to be nothing less than an agricultural disaster.
Farmers and scientists across the nation have discovered solid evidence linking the use of Roundup Ready corn and soy, in conjunction with the Roundup weed killer, to massive rates of animal infertility and spontaneous abortion. In fact, infertility rates have been recorded as high as 20%, while spontaneous abortions are occurring at the unbelievable rate of 45%. Scientific evidence suggests that this disaster is being caused by severe micronutrient deficiencies in the soil on farms which use Roundup Ready seed and the weedkiller. Apparently, these deficiencies depopulate the soil of its regular microorganisms and have enabled an as yet unnamed microorganism to take their place. Along with general nutrient deficiencies in Roundup Ready crops, this new microorganism has been identified by scientists as the cause of the disaster. The situation is bad enough as is, but it promises to become even worse as Roundup Ready alfalfa is planted because alfalfa is used primarily to make hay that is fed to livestock. (http://action.fooddemocracynow.org/sign/dr_hubers_warning/)
What comes as the largest surprise, however, is that these scientific findings are not brand new. In fact, the respected plant pathologist Dr. Don M. Huber sent a letter outlining this situation to Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack on January 17th, 2011. This was weeks before Secretary Vilsack approved the use of Roundup Ready Alfalfa. We are left to wonder why Secretary Vilsack disregarded Dr. Huber’s warning and request for additional time and funding for further research into Roundup Ready crops. We can be sure, however, that Monsanto was tirelessly lobbying the Obama administration for approval of its alfalfa seed.
Furthermore, the Roundup disaster provides us with yet another example of the dangers of transgenic and industrial scale agriculture. Situations like this are what makes the development of sound food policy so critical for our communities, both locally and nationally.
Now, the good news regarding all of this is that there is something each of us can do about the USDA’s questionable decision making. I encourage you to watch the video below, in which Dr. Huber explains the shocking breadth of the crisis, and then sign the petition to ask the Obama administration to ban the use of Roundup Ready alfalfa until further (independent!) research can be conducted. The petition can be found at:
http://action.fooddemocracynow.org/sign/dr_hubers_warning/
As you may be aware, the U.S. Department of Agriculture, at the behest of the Obama administration, approved the use of a new strain of genetically engineered alfalfa seed in January of this year. This transgenic seed, which was developed by Monsanto, is called “Roundup Ready” alfalfa because it is designed to be resistant to the corporation’s widely used weed killer, Roundup. While this initially appeared to be a windfall for farmers who use transgenic seed, it has become clear that Roundup Ready alfalfa is almost certainly going to prove to be nothing less than an agricultural disaster.
Farmers and scientists across the nation have discovered solid evidence linking the use of Roundup Ready corn and soy, in conjunction with the Roundup weed killer, to massive rates of animal infertility and spontaneous abortion. In fact, infertility rates have been recorded as high as 20%, while spontaneous abortions are occurring at the unbelievable rate of 45%. Scientific evidence suggests that this disaster is being caused by severe micronutrient deficiencies in the soil on farms which use Roundup Ready seed and the weedkiller. Apparently, these deficiencies depopulate the soil of its regular microorganisms and have enabled an as yet unnamed microorganism to take their place. Along with general nutrient deficiencies in Roundup Ready crops, this new microorganism has been identified by scientists as the cause of the disaster. The situation is bad enough as is, but it promises to become even worse as Roundup Ready alfalfa is planted because alfalfa is used primarily to make hay that is fed to livestock. (http://action.fooddemocracynow.org/sign/dr_hubers_warning/)
What comes as the largest surprise, however, is that these scientific findings are not brand new. In fact, the respected plant pathologist Dr. Don M. Huber sent a letter outlining this situation to Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack on January 17th, 2011. This was weeks before Secretary Vilsack approved the use of Roundup Ready Alfalfa. We are left to wonder why Secretary Vilsack disregarded Dr. Huber’s warning and request for additional time and funding for further research into Roundup Ready crops. We can be sure, however, that Monsanto was tirelessly lobbying the Obama administration for approval of its alfalfa seed.
Furthermore, the Roundup disaster provides us with yet another example of the dangers of transgenic and industrial scale agriculture. Situations like this are what makes the development of sound food policy so critical for our communities, both locally and nationally.
Now, the good news regarding all of this is that there is something each of us can do about the USDA’s questionable decision making. I encourage you to watch the video below, in which Dr. Huber explains the shocking breadth of the crisis, and then sign the petition to ask the Obama administration to ban the use of Roundup Ready alfalfa until further (independent!) research can be conducted. The petition can be found at:
http://action.fooddemocracynow.org/sign/dr_hubers_warning/
Dr. Huber Explains Science Behind New Organism and Threat from Monsanto's Roundup, GMOs to Disease and Infertility from Food Democracy Now! on Vimeo.
Wednesday, June 1, 2011
AGENDA: Working Group Meeting Wed June 8th!
Food Advisory Council for Memphis and Shelby County
Working Group Meeting
Wednesday June 8, 2011
5:30 pm – 7:00 pm
Mid-South Peace and Justice Center, 1000 S Cooper St.
1. Welcome and Introductions – 5 min
2. Discuss changing all meetings to evenings – 5 min
3. Review final draft of White Paper and discuss next steps, brainstorm list of necessary supporters – 30 min
4. Food Ordinance Handbook update and next steps – 30 min
5. Schedule Fundraising Plan Committee meeting - 5 min
6. General Updates/Announcements - 10 min
All meetings are open to the public, just email josephine@midsouthpeace.org or call 901-725-4990 so we know to expect you.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)