What happens when you apply of love of small things to an art form that’s already all about small things? In recent years Bonsai—Japan’s art form of growing miniature trees in miniature planters—has undergone a miniaturization trend. Industry experts consider bonsai plants less than 3 cm (about 1 inch) to be particularly difficult, but artists have taken on the challenge, creating tiny plants and tiny planters that, literally, are at your fingertips. It’s given rise to a new category, known as cho-mini bonsai, or ultra-small bonsai.
http://www.mercola.com/ Genetically modified organisms (GMOs) are detrimental to your overall health. Discover why these genetically modified foods are NOT safe to consume.
Developer of first commercialised GM food says debate isn't over.
The number of scientists, physicians and legal experts who have signed the group statement, "No scientific consensus on GMO safety" has climbed to 231 in just over a week - and it's still growing.
The number of initial signatories stood at almost 100 on the day the
statement was released, 21 October. It has more than doubled since.
A recent signatory is Dr Belinda Martineau, former member of the
Michelmore Lab at the UC Davis Genome Center, University of California,
who helped commercialise the world's first GM whole food, the Flavr Savr
tomato. Dr Martineau said:
"I wholeheartedly support this thorough, thoughtful and professional
statement describing the lack of scientific consensus on the safety of
genetically engineered (GM/GE) crops and other GM/GE organisms (also
referred to as GMOs). Society's debate over how best to utilize the
powerful technology of genetic engineering is clearly not over. For its
supporters to assume it is, is little more than wishful thinking."
Another signatory, Dr Judy Carman, director of the Institute of
Health and Environmental Research, Adelaide, and adjunct associate
professor, health and the environment, Flinders University, South
Australia, said:
"Of the hundreds of different GM crops that have been approved for human
and animal consumption somewhere in the world, few have been thoroughly
safety tested. So it is not possible to have a consensus that they are
all safe to eat - at least, not a consensus based on hard scientific
evidence derived from experimental data."
A third signatory, Prof Elena Alvarez-Buyllla, coordinator of the
Laboratory of Molecular Genetics of Plant Development and Evolution,
Institute of Ecology, UNAM, Mexico, said:
"Given the scientific evidence at hand, sweeping claims that GM crops
are substantially equivalent to, and as safe as, non-GM crops are not
justifiable.
We must be especially cautious in the case of proposed release of a
GM crop in the centre of genetic origin for that crop. An example is the
planting of GM maize in Mexico. Mexico is the centre of genetic origin
for maize. GM genes can irreversibly contaminate the numerous native
varieties which form the genetic reservoir for all future breeding of
maize varieties. In addition, maize is a staple food crop for the
Mexican people. So GMO releases can threaten the genetic diversity on
which food security depends, both within Mexico and globally.
Such decisions with broad implications for society should not be made by
a narrow group of self-selected experts, many of whom have commercial
interests in GM technology, but must also involve the millions of people
who will be most affected. As things stand, in Mexico we have an
ongoing uncontrolled experiment with no independent scientific or
popular mandate, in which GM genes are allowed to crossbreed with native
maize varieties. The inevitable result will be genetic alterations with
unpredictable effects."
A fourth signatory, Dr Joachim H. Spangenberg, faculty member at the UFZ
Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research, Leipzig, Germany, said:
"Researchers in ecology and relevant environmental sciences have
predicted negative environmental impacts from GM crops for around 25
years. Over the years, many of these impacts have been empirically
documented. One example is the development of pest resistance to GM Bt
insecticidal crops and weed resistance to the required herbicides for GM
herbicide-tolerant crops. These resistance problems are now an
increasing problem for farmers - to the benefit of the GM seed and
agrochemical corporations - and are forcing farmers back to older,
even more toxic chemical pesticides.
Twenty years ago, the international academic associations of ecologists
and molecular biologists met at the International Council for Science.
The two groups agreed that their fields of expertise were complementary
and that they needed to cooperate in order to assess the ecological
impacts of GM crops in a systematic way. However, many molecular
biologists involved in GM crop development today persistently ignore
their own blind spots and the science emerging from the complementary
environmental segments of the science community, turning the application
of GM technology into a social risk."
Dr. Don Huber is likely the leading GMO
expert in the world. He is an award-winning, internationally recognized
scientist, and professor of plant pathology at Purdue University for
the past 35 years.
His agriculture research is focused on the epidemiology and control of
soil-borne plant pathogens, with specific emphasis on microbial ecology,
cultural and biological controls, and the physiology of host-parasite
relationships.
His research over the past few decades has led him to become very
outspoken against genetically modified organisms (GMO) and genetically
engineered (GE) foods and the use of Roundup in agriculture in general.
He's really one of the best scientists we have in the GMO movement for documenting the dangers of genetically engineered foods.
"I appreciate the opportunity to share a little bit of my research
and the research of many other scientists who are expressing concern;
recognizing that we've missed the boat in much of this discussion and
much of the process, because it's really a food and health safety issue
that we're dealing with here," he says.
Three Things You Need to Know About GMOs
There's a lot of confusion about the basic validity of concerns
about genetically engineered (GE) foods. Many have been deceived into
thinking that there's really no difference between GE foods and
conventional fare, and all these worries are just paranoid
fear-mongering.
According to Dr. Huber, the following three facts are some of the most important that everyone needs to understand about GMOs:
Despite what the media and so-called "experts" proclaim, there are
NO peer-reviewed scientific papers establishing the safety of GMO crops.
According to Dr. Huber, so far, no one has been able to establish that
there's a safety factor to either the genetically engineered proteins
(i.e. the foreign proteins produced by the genetically modified plant)
or the chemicals we're consuming in ever larger quantities as a result
of the genetic engineering process.
There are, however, both clinical and peer-reviewed scientific
papers showing the hazards of GMO crops, including harmful secondary
effects.
"A group of us met with top USDA administrators. They assured us
that they based all their decisions on peer-reviewed science. When we
asked them if they would share any of that, they were unable to produce
any," he says.
Epidemiological patterns show there's an
identical rise in over 30 human diseases correlated with our increased
usage of glyphosate and the increased prevalence of genetically
engineered proteins in our food.
Genetically engineered foods, as well as conventional crops that are
heavily sprayed with glyphosate (the active ingredient in Monsanto's
herbicide Roundup), have lower nutrient density than organic foods. They
also contain high amounts of pesticides with documented harmful health
effects, along with novel, highly allergenic, proteins.
Little-Known Facts About Glyphosate
You can't really discuss genetic engineering without also addressing the
chemicals these plants are engineered to tolerate. About 85 percent of
all genetically engineered plants are herbicide-tolerant - designed to
tolerate very high levels of herbicides, glyphosate in particular. These
are the so-called Roundup Ready crops.
It's important to realize that glyphosate is not "just" an herbicide. As
explained by Dr. Huber, it was first patented as a mineral chelator. It
immobilizes nutrients, so they're not physiologically available for your body.
"You may have the mineral [in the plant], but if it's chelated with
glyphosate, it's not going to be available physiologically for you to
use, so you're just eating a piece of gravel," Dr. Huber says.
Naturally, health effects are bound to occur if you're consistently
eating foods from which your body cannot extract critical nutrients and
minerals. Mineral deficiencies can lead to developmental and mental
health issues, for example. Glyphosate is also patented as an antibiotic
- and a very effective one at that - against a large number of
beneficial organisms. Unfortunately, like all antibiotics, it also kills
vitally important beneficial soil bacteria and human gut bacteria.
"Lactobacillus, Bifidobacterium, Enterococcus faecalis - these are
organisms that keep you healthy either by providing accessibility to the
minerals in your food or producing many of the vitamins that you need
for life. They're also the natural biological defenses to keep
Clostridium, Salmonella, and E.coli from developing in your system," Dr. Huber explains.
"When you take the good bacteria out, then the bad bacteria
fill that void, because there aren't any voids in nature. We have all of
these gut-related problems, whether it's autism, leaky gut, C.
difficile diarrhea, gluten intolerance, or any of the other problems.
All of these diseases are an expression of disruption of that intestinal
microflora that keeps you healthy."
Glyphosate was first patented as a chelator in 1964 by Stauffer Chemical
Co. It was patented by Monsanto and introduced as an herbicide in 1974.
And then in 1996, Roundup Ready crops hit the market. There's been a
steep increase in the usage of Roundup since then, because you can apply
it multiple times without damaging your crop. Making matters worse,
they're now also using glyphosate as a ripening agent - even for non-GMO
crops. It's applied right before harvest time to ripen off the crop.
"We have about a five-fold increase in glyphosate usage on many of
our GMO crops. With the Roundup Ready-resistant weeds, we see that rate
going up exponentially," he says.
Did You Know? EPA Just Increased Allowable Limits of Glyphosate in Your Food
Despite well-understood health risks, the US Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) is repeatedly approached by agricultural and biotech
companies asking for increased limits of this pernicious toxin in your
food.
"The companies say we have to increase the amount of glyphosate that
we can have in your food, so we can have a 'safe' product - not based
on science but based on how much chemical is actually in our food!" Dr.Huber says.
On May 1, the EPA went ahead and doubled the amount of glyphosate
allowed in food... Soybean oil may now contain as much as 40 parts per
million (ppm) of glyphosate. Meanwhile, research by Dr. Monika Krueger
at Leipzig University shows that a tenth of a part per million is all that it takes to kill your Lactobacillus, Bifidobacterium, and Enterococcus faecalis! So soybean oil is now allowed to contain a whopping 4,000 times the known limit at which it can impact your health.
Can GMOs Coexist with Conventional Crops?
On September 20, agriculture secretary Tom Vilsack announced that the
Department of Agriculture (USDA) will soon publish a notice in the Federal Register
asking for public comments on how agricultural coexistence in the US
might be strengthened. At the time of this writing, the USDA has not yet
published that notice, but you can search the Federal Register for the latest notices here.1
According to the media release:2
"The Advisory Committee on Biotechnology and 21st Century
Agriculture recommended that USDA support agricultural coexistence by
strengthening education and outreach on this vital issue... In response,
with this notice, we are asking all those with a vested interest in
coexistence to help us learn more about what coexistence means to them,
how they are already contributing to it, and what more is needed to
achieve coexistence. With this input, we can continue the dialogue begun
by the AC21 group3 and find practical solutions that will help all sectors of American agriculture be successful.
... Coexistence is defined as the concurrent cultivation of crops
produced through diverse agricultural systems including traditionally
produced, organic, identity preserved, and genetically engineered crops.
USDA supports all forms of agriculture and wants each sector to be as
successful as possible providing products to markets in the United
States and abroad."
Vilsack wants comments... How about we start with the suggestion that
"Biotech Government of the Year shouldn't be running the show." He says
the USDA supports ALL agriculture, yet the USDA primarily subsidizes
junk food crops - corn and soy - and cave in to the multi-million dollar
lobbying of the biotech industry. Meanwhile, the USDA has all but wiped
out raw milk, heritage hogs, and most small farmers. So, really, the
only agriculture the USDA support is the chemical variety. When asked
whether he believes that it's ever appropriate or possible for GMOs to
coexist with conventional and organic crops, Dr. Huber replies:
"We know how to get these genes in; we don't know how to remove them," he says.
"I don't see any opportunity for coexistence with the current
technology that we have because of that promiscuous nature of the genes.
If you have a gene that is spread by pollen, like Roundup Ready
alfalfa, it's just a matter of time before bees or the wind is going to
transfer that particular pollen to every alfalfa crop that you're going
to grow. There's a very high probability that you're going to see that
genetic component in it."
The StarLink Case - Proof Positive GMOs Can't 'Coexist' with Natural Plants
According to Dr. Huber, our knowledge of what we're doing in the genetic
engineering process is extremely limited. Contrary to popular belief,
we're still only in the initial stages of understanding what we're doing
in that whole process:
"We do know that it's more like a virus infection than it is a
breeding program. In other words, you're throwing genes in, but you're
not moving all of the regulatory and control mechanisms with those genes
so that they're only going to function at a time when the plant needs
it or under conditions when it needs it. It's a flawed science to think
that you have one gene or one little group of genes and it's going to do
this particular function and not the other things."
Clearly, that's not the general perception. Most people are still under
the illusion that genetic engineering is a very precise approach. That's
certainly what the industry wants you to believe. But as Dr. Huber
points out, we learned some very important facts from sequencing of the
human genome: There aren't nearly enough genes to do all of the things
we know are done within the human body.
This is related to the profoundly important relationships that
epigenetics controls. We found out that a gene actually functions in relation to the environment and its relationship to other genes or other genetic components
in that code. When you disrupt those relationships and the integrity of
the genetic code, you end up with mutations and epigenetic effects that
we've yet to explore.
"We know they occur because for every one of those successful
expressions that you get from genetic engineering, you have over a
million other things that take place that are negative," he says.
"We also have potentially negative [effects] with the one that
succeeded in expressing a particular protein that you want for genetic
engineering. But nobody even looks for all of those other epigenetic effects that occur.
One of the things that we do know, since we don't have the
regulatory genes that would normally be part of those components from a
regular breeding program, is that the genes that are being inserted are
extremely promiscuous. They're not stable. They may stay in and be
transferred through a regular breeding program after they're introduced.
But we know that they can be transferred to soil microorganisms when
the stubble or the grain is digested and decomposed in the soil - or in
your gut."
In the latter case, your gut flora can then pick up those same genes,
and can start producing those foreign proteins, which are extremely
allergenic. A perfect example of this was the StarLink corn, which
produced a protein that turned out to be very toxic to humans. StarLink
was grown 10 years ago for a pharmaceutical process. It was pulled off
the market when they realized it had escaped from its confines and had
the ability to contaminate corn destined for food production.
We know that GE crops decimate agricultural variety - countless
varieties have been wiped out in order to foster a few monocultures.
Now, if GMOs are removed, will there really be less food variety?
This ridiculous concept was recently brought forth by Scientific American.4
The erroneous and illogical claims made in the editorial mirrors claims
made by Monsanto - such as the idea that GMO labels could destroy the
market for genetically engineered foods in a country where 70 percent of
processed foods already contain them. This, they want you to believe,
would result in "less variety and higher costs." Look, we're primarily
talking about ingredients like corn syrup and soy! And food companies do
not appear to have any major problems supplying Europe, where GMOs have
to be labeled, with products that do not contain genetically engineered
corn and soy.
It's funny how times have changed at Scientific American, as
they now tow the biotech line like a well greased PR firm. It wasn't all
that long ago that they had the right idea, questioning the logic and
safety of restricting GE crop research to the seed companies that make
them.5
Could YOU Be Altering Your OWN Genes When You Eat GMOs?
As discussed by Dr. Huber, research clearly shows that the novel
proteins created in genetically engineered plants are highly allergenic,
with the capability to promote diseases like cancer and liver or kidney
failure. But Dr. Huber points out that there are other factors involved
as well, which have some scientists concerned about the spread of those
genes into the human gut... Not only do GMOs alter your intestinal
microflora, but research shows that human cells are also able to
transfer those novel genes, thereby affecting the human genome.
"Especially with generation two genetic engineering, called gene silencing
- that section of the nucleic acid can actually be picked up or
attached to your own genes, and then start shutting down your own
physiology in that process... It's well-documented in the scientific
literature."
Indeed, last year, University of Canterbury Professor Jack Heinemann
released results from genetic research he conducted on this type of GE
wheat, which showed without "any doubt" that molecules created in the
wheat, which are intended to silence wheat genes to change its
carbohydrate content, may match human genes and potentially silence
them. If that's not a concern, I don't know what is! University
Professor Judy Carman agreed with Heinemann's analysis, stating in Digital Journal:6
"If this silences the same gene in us that it silences in the wheat
-- well, children who are born with this enzyme not working tend to die
by the age of about five."
Heinemann reported that his research revealed over 770 pages of
potential matches between two GM genes in the wheat and the human
genome. Over a dozen matches were "extensive and identical and
sufficient to cause silencing in experimental systems," he said. Experts
warned that eating the wheat could lead to significant changes in the
way glucose and carbohydrates are stored in the human body, which could
be potentially deadly for children and lead to serious illness in
adults.
Glyphosate - Another Culprit in Bee Die-Offs?
Glyphosate may also play a role in bee colony collapse disorder. As
stated by Dr. Huber, there are three established characteristics of
colony collapse disorder that suggests glyphosate may be (at least in
part) responsible:
The bees are mineral-deficient, especially in micronutrients
There's plenty of food present but they're not able to utilize it or to digest it
Dead bees are devoid of the Lactobacillus and the Bifidobacterium, which are components of their digestive system
The bees also become disoriented, suggesting endocrine hormone disruption. Neonicotinoid insecticides,
which are endocrine hormone disruptors, have been demonstrated to make a
bee disoriented and unable to find its way back to the hive. Glyphosate
is also a very strong endocrine hormone disruptor.
Dr. Huber cites a study on glyphosate in drinking water at levels that
are commonly found in US water systems, showing a 30 percent mortality
in bees exposed to it. And that's just from common levels of glyphosate
in drinking water...
Glyphosate Is a Cumulative Chronic Toxin
Americans are in a tough spot right now, as there's no telling which
foods might contain genetically engineered ingredients tainted with high
amounts of Roundup. Labeling would at least tell you that much, and
give you the freedom to choose another product.
"A consumer needs to be very concerned. They need to be active in the labeling aspects," Dr. Huber says. "They also need to be active in the requirement for safety studies. These haven't been done. When
the EPA employed the term 'substantially equivalent,' it gave the
chemical companies essentially a waiver on doing any of the safety
tests. The only thing that they've ever tested for is acute toxicity.
Well, we know that glyphosate, for instance, isn't an acute toxin. It's a
serious chronic toxin. That's been well-established in peer-reviewed
scientific articles. We have more of those coming along all the time.
There is no question that it's a chronic toxin."
According to Dr. Huber, glyphosate at a mere 0.5 ppm is toxic to your
endocrine hormone system, which includes your pituitary, thyroid, and
reproductive hormones. Ten ppm is cytotoxic to kidney cells; one ppm is
toxic to your liver, and 0.1-10 ppm are toxic to a whole series of human
cellular functions or cells directly. Dr. Huber has even likened glyphosate to DDT
in terms of toxicity. Consider that, and then consider that we are
currently using some 880 million pounds - that's nearly ONE BILLION
pounds - of glyphosate annually on crops grown worldwide.
As Dr. Seneff and Samsel reveal in a recent study conducted at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, glyphosate is probably the most harmful chronic toxin we've ever encountered, both in our environment and on our dinner plates.
Their findings show that two of the key problems caused by glyphosate
in the diet are nutritional deficiencies, and systemic toxicity.
"It's just that you don't get killed or die today from it; you have
to suffer through the process of gluten intolerance, leaky gut, Crohn's,
Alzheimer's, autism, or any of those diseases that are related to the
health of your gut, which we're seeing now on an epidemic scale in our
society," he says.
Why Is the USDA Ignoring This Health Threat?
Two years ago, in 2011, Dr. Huber wrote a letter to USDA Secretary Tom
Vilsack, informing him of many of the safety concerns surrounding
genetically engineered crops, along with yet another groundbreaking finding that could spell absolute disaster
for your entire food supply. He warned Vilsack about the emergence of a
brand new electron microscope-sized organism associated with something
called Sudden Death Syndrome (SDS) in soy.
It's also found in a large variety of livestock given GE feed who
experience both spontaneous abortions and infertility. This includes
cattle, horses, sheep, pigs, and poultry. Might it affect humans in the
same way? Dr. Huber urged the USDA to investigate the matter and suspend
approval of GE alfalfa until proper studies have been completed.
"We know that all herbicides are chelators, mineral chelators.
That's how they compromise the plant's physiology: they tie up a
particular nutrient and shut down a physiologic pathway," he says.
"This wasn't new from that standpoint. But the thing that was different
[with glyphosate] was its biocidal effect. It's not only a chelator,
but it's also a strong antibiotic to beneficial microorganisms. How do
you compensate for that? How do you restore biological activities?
Much of my research, which was focused on glyphosate, was focused on
the biology and restoration of those mineral nutrients. I served on the
National Plant Disease Recovery Program. I was chairman at that time
and also for the USDA. I've also served for 40 years on our various
threat pathogens committees and recognized what the potential problems
were with Roundup Ready alfalfa."
The American Stock Growers' Association also testified before Congress,
saying that infertility was threatening the animal industry. Dr. Huber
saw how all of these issues were connected - via genetically engineered
crops and the application of glyphosate. He felt an obligation to alert
the USDA secretary and to ask for his help in getting the research done
before further jeopardizing not only our fourth most important crop, but
also our entire animal production because of the prevalence of this new
abortogenic entity, found in high concentrations in GE or
high-glyphosate intense growth conditions.
His warnings were ignored, and GE alfalfa was deregulated that same
year. Why is the USDA ignoring warnings from a scientist with 50 years of experience with plant pathology, soil-borne diseases, microbial ecology, and host-parasite relationships?
"A group of us met with the top administrators. I've never met with
the secretary personally. But we did have the privilege of meeting and
sharing our concerns and 130 or so peer-reviewed scientific articles
that support our position with top administrators in USDA and some of
the other agencies. They assured us that if we could do the work, they
would be willing to look at it.
Well, they haven't looked at any of the other peer-reviewed
science... And the USDA scientists, who have a tremendous amount of
knowledge on the impact of glyphosate, have all been muzzled. They're
not permitted to say anything about it. I got a phone call from one a
few weeks ago. He said, 'I'll be retiring fairly soon. I plan on moving
off and sharing that stage with you because I have a lot that I want to
say. I just can't say it right now.'"
GMOs Are Not the Solution to Feed a Burgeoning Population
There is simply no question and there is irrefutable evidence that
genetic engineering is not the solution to feed a growing world
population. Rather, it actually increases disease susceptibility of
plants by impairing their immune response. It also reduces, not
increases, yield potential. There's never been a genetically engineered
plant that increases the intrinsic yield of a plant. Improved plant
yield is accomplished through traditional breeding programs that promote
improved gene expression.
"We're only expressing 25 or 30 percent of the genetic potential for yield in any of our crops now," Dr. Huber says.
"There's tremendous potential there. It's a matter of using that
traditional breeding as we've done for many years and getting better
expression - not throwing in additional genes to act like a virus and
disrupt the integrity of the whole process that's required for yield and
quality.
We can increase all of the nutrient density with traditional
breeding. In fact, the Brazilians are doing that. They've just released
new varieties of soybean with higher vitamin A, and corn with higher
vitamin A and vitamin C. We can do all of that with traditional
breeding. We've been doing it for years. You don't need to disrupt the
genetic integrity and introduce all the collateral damage with its
long-term effects."
I can personally attest to this fact as well. High-performance
agriculture is one of my new passions, so much so it's turning into
something of a second career - to learn and understand how to optimize
plant growth and the environment. I've been applying what I've learned
in my own garden for a few months now, and I've been able to personally
witness the maximization of genetic potential that is possible. For
example, by using compost tea and mineral amendments, the leaves on some
plants, like my lime trees and oleanders, are literally 300 to 400
percent bigger than the typical leaf of these plants. It's truly
extraordinary! You wouldn't even imagine that plants could grow that
big.
Part of the problem is that we've gotten used to less than mediocrity,
when it comes to plant performance. According to John Kempf,7
an Amish farmer and one of the leaders in the field of high-performance
agriculture, farmers and food producers routinely harvest only about 10 to 15 percent
of the inherent genetic capacity of any given crop. In a nutshell, the
foundation of health - whether we're talking about plants, soils,
animals, or people - it really boils down to two things:
Having adequate mineral nutrition, and
Having that nutrition, in the case of plants, be supplied by an
active soil microbial community, or having a strong soil biology,
Genetically engineered crops decimate both. How could it possibly be the
answer to rising food demands?
Join Us in Your Right to Know by Getting GMOs Labeled!
While California Prop. 37 failed to pass last November by a very narrow
margin, the fight for GMO labeling is far from over. In the past few
weeks, Connecticut and Maine have passed GMO-labeling bills, and 20
other states have pending legislation to label genetically engineered
foods. So, now is the time to put the pedal to the metal and get
labeling across the country - something 64 other countries already have.
I hope you will join us in this effort.
The field-of-play has now moved to the state of Washington, where the
people's initiative 522, "The People's Right to Know Genetically
Engineered Food Act," will require food sold in retail outlets to be
labeled if it contains genetically engineered ingredients. Please help
us win this key GMO labeling battle and continue to build momentum for
GMO labeling in other states by making a donation to the Organic Consumers Association (OCA).
Remember, as with CA Prop. 37, they need support of people like YOU to
succeed. Prop. 37 failed with a very narrow margin simply because we
didn't have the funds to counter the massive ad campaigns created by the
No on 37 camp, led by Monsanto and other major food companies. Let's
not allow Monsanto and its allies to confuse and mislead the people of
Washington and Vermont as they did in California. So please, I urge you
to get involved and help in any way you can.
No matter where you live in the United States, please donate money to these labeling efforts through the Organic Consumers Fund.
Sign up to learn more about how you can get involved by visiting Yeson522.com!
For timely updates on issues relating to these and other labeling initiatives, please join the Organic Consumers Association on Facebook, or follow them on Twitter.
Talk to organic producers and stores and ask them to actively support the Washington initiative.
The future is local. The future is organic. Well, at least it could be if we base our food production on an increasing body of evidence that indicates the harmful effects of petrochemical, corporate-controlled agriculture.
In June, researchers at the University of Canterbury in New Zealand concluded that the GM strategy used in North American staple crop production is limiting yields and increasing pesticide use compared to non-GM farming in Western Europe. Led by Professor Jack Heinemann, the study’s findings were published in the International Journal of Agricultural Sustainability.
The study finds that Europe is decreasing chemical herbicide use and achieving even larger declines in insecticide use without sacrificing yield gains, while chemical herbicide use in the US has increased with GM seed.
In effect, Europe has learned to grow more food per hectare and use fewer chemicals in the process. The US choices in biotechnology are causing it to fall behind Europe in productivity and sustainability. The decrease in annual variation in yield in the US suggests that Europe has a superior combination of seed and crop management technology and is better suited to withstand weather variations. This is important because annual variations cause price speculations that can drive hundreds of millions of people into food poverty.
The report also highlights some grave concerns about the impact of modern agriculture per se in terms of the general move towards depleted genetic diversity and the consequently potential catastrophic risk to staple food crops. Of the nearly 10,000 wheat varieties in use in China in 1949, only 1,000 remained in the 1970s.
In the US, 95% of the cabbage, 91% of the field maize, 94% of the pea and 81% of the tomato varieties cultivated in the last century have been lost. GMOs and the control of seeds through patents have restricted farmer choice and prevented seed saving. This has exacerbated this problem.
The conclusion is that we need a diversity of practices for growing. We also need systems that are useful, not just profit-making biotechnologies, and which provide a resilient supply to feed the world well.
On the heels the Heinemann team’s research comes a September 2013 report by the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD), which states that farming in rich and poor nations alike should shift from monoculture towards greater varieties of crops, reduced use of fertilisers and other inputs, greater support for small-scale farmers and more locally focused production and consumption of food. More than 60 international experts contributed to the report.
The report, ‘Wake up before it is too late: make agriculture truly sustainable now for food security in a changing climate’, states that monoculture and industrial farming methods are not providing sufficient affordable food where it is needed, while causing mounting and unsustainable environmental damage. The system actually causes food poverty, not addresses it.
Over the past few years, there have been numerous high level reports from the UN and development agencies arguing in favour of small farmers and agro-ecology, but this has not been translated into real action on the ground where peasant farmers increasingly face marginalisation and oppression, as we have seen in India. According to Vandana Shiva, the plundering of Indian agriculture by Big Agra is resulting in a forced removal of farmers from the land and the destruction of traditional communities on a scale of which has not been witnessed anywhere before throughout history.
Elizabeth Mpofu, general coordinator of the organization La Vía Campesina says that long before the release of this new report, small farmers around the world were already convinced that we need a diversified agriculture to guarantee a balanced local food production, the protection of people’s livelihoods and the respect of nature. To achieve this goal, she feels the protection of the huge variety of local seeds and farmers’ rights to use them is paramount. Small farmers are struggling to preserve their indigenous seeds and knowledge of farming systems.
Evidence is mounting that the industrial food system is not only failing to feed the world, but also responsible for some of the planet’s most pressing social and environmental crises. Industrial food system is directly responsible for around half of all global greenhouse gas emissions. We cannot solve the climate crisis without confronting the industrial food system and the corporations behind it.
Pat Mooney of the ETC group adds that the corporate food chain uses about 70-80% of the world’s arable land to produce just 30-40% of the food we eat. In the process, peasant farmers, the real food producers, get thrown off their land and tremendous environmental harm is done. This is clearly not the way to feed the world.
There are lessons here for India, as the biotech sector continues to push its second ‘Green Revolution’ – GMOs. The original Green Revolution in India has been a failure, with Indian farmers in debt, paying high costs for seed and pesticides, committing suicide, and resulting in a depleted water table and a poisoned environment.
Punjab was the ‘Green Revolution’s’ original poster boy, but is fast becoming transformed from a food bowl to a cancer epicentre and now reels under an agrarian crisis marked by discontent, debt, water shortages, contaminated water, diseased soils and pest infested cops.
As the new UN report indicates, what is required is a shift from corporate-controlled agriculture towards more biodiverse, organic systems that place emphasis on local economies and food sovereignty. The answer is to return to basics by encouraging biodiverse, organic, local crop systems, which is more than capable of feeding the world – and, unlike chemical intensive agriculture – feeding it healthily.
(NaturalNews) You don't have to waste money on toxic chemicals to clean yourhome, treat a cold, or pamper your skin. Lemon juice is a simple, natural alternative that can replace countless bottles of over-priced chemicals.
10 creative ways to use lemon juice
1.Grease removal-A mixture of plain water and lemon juice is tough enough to bust through any grease on your kitchen appliances and counter tops.
2.Disinfect and deodorize your kitchen- Is your refrigerator or cutting boardreallyclean? Surfaces where we prepare andstorefood need to be clean, but this is also exactly where we don't want to use toxic chemical cleaners. Lemon juice is excellent for disinfecting these surfaces, and will also remove unpleasant stains and odors.
3.Sooth a cough- Mix some raw honey with an equal amount of lemon juice to ease your coughing. This also works well for a sore throat.
4.Enhance digestion- Fresh lemon juice in water can aid digestion during meals. It's also a great way to hydrate in the morning when you first wake up.
5.Tone your skin- Use a cotton ball to apply a light layer of diluted lemon juice to your skin. Let it sit for ten minutes and then rinse away with cool water. The lemon juice will naturally exfoliate your skin, and can also lighten dark spots and scars.
6.Clean glass- Lemon juice is just what you need to bring the sparkle back to that dull vase, coffee pot or decanter. You can also use one part lemon juice in ten parts water to shine your windows.
7.Clean and soften your hands- Lemon juice is excellent for removing stains and odors left on your hands. Lightly scrub the lemon juice into your hands with a sponge, then rinse and moisturize as usual. Your hands will feel clean, soft and fresh.
8.Remove tarnish- A simple paste of table salt and lemon juice can make tarnished copper, chrome and brass gleam again. Apply the mixture, allow it to sit for ten minutes, then rinse with warm water and buff gently to shine.
9.Get sun-kissed hair highlights -Chemicals used to lighten hair can be highly toxic. Get natural highlights by spritzing your hair with lemon juice before you go out in the sun. As an added bonus, rinsing your hair with lemon juice removes build-up and gives your locks incredible shine.
10.Clean your toilet- Toilet cleaning products are harsh and unnecessary. A mixture of borax powder and lemon juice will leave your toilet looking (and smelling) as good as new!
