Monsanto's Minions in California

ORIGINAL: Truthout

Kathy Fairbanks, spokeswoman with the Coalition Against the Costly Food Labeling Proposition, says requiring labels on genetically engineered food would increase food prices. What she doesn't say is that she's being paid by the trade association that represents both the biotech behemoths like Monsanto that engineer the GMO crops and the food industry giants like PepsiCo. that use ingredients made from these crops in their products. PepsiCo., Kraft, Kellogg's and other top food processors market so-called "natural" protects at a premium that rivals what consumers pay for non-GMO and organic foods - even though these so-called "natural" foods contain unlabeled GMOs. The money these companies swindle from us as they trick us into paying top-dollar for GMO foods disguised as "natural" dwarfs the miniscule 0.01% of food costs attributable to GMO labels. Would it surprise you to learn that anti-right-to-know spokesperson Fairbanks has spent most of her career helping corrupt insurance companies increase premiums on vulnerable customers?

Maryann Marino, Southern California regional director of California Citizens Against Lawsuit Abuse says GMO labels will make family farmers and small businesses vulnerable to lawsuits. Her organization is a state chapter of the American Tort Reform Association (funded by Monsanto) which thinks it's okay for Monsanto to sue farmers in 143 different patent infringement lawsuits when their crops are unintentionally contaminated with Monsanto's GMOs, but it isn't okay for farmers to get together and bring one lawsuit against Monsanto to stop the harassment. Think they really care about family farmers or small businesses? Their only interests are protecting Monsanto's market share and helping companies sneak Monsanto's ingredients into their products without letting consumers know.

GMO Labels Will Not Significantly Increase Food Costs - And Could Even Lower Them

A 2002 Oregon State University study reviewed the true costs of actual laws requiring labels on genetically engineered food in other countries. According to the study, a law in the UK, like the one proposed for CA, increased food spending by only 0.01%. The most any GMO labeling proposal was projected to cost was 1.8%. (This was from a Canadian study where, the authors note, the costs of segregating crops, changing processing procedures and changing the label were exaggerated and came only from expectations expressed by industry spokespersons.) 

The 0.01% to 1.8% increase in the cost of labeling GMO foods must be put in perspective by looking at what companies already spend and consumers currently pay to avoid genetically engineered ingredients. A 2005 University of Delaware study showed that consumers would pay 20-30% more for non-GMO or organic. The so-called "natural" food industry has taken full advantage of consumer interest in avoiding GMOs and consumer ignorance in where those GMOs may be lurking. A review by the Cornucopia Institute of "natural," non-GMO and organic cereals showed that so-called "natural" cereals that contained unlabeled GMOs were sometimes more expensive than real non-GMO and organic cereals.

Once GMOs are labeled, consumers will easily be able to substitute products that contain non-GMO cane sugar for products made with GMO sugar beet sugar or high-fructose corn syrup and change from vegetable oils made from GMO canola to non-GMO sunflower or olive oil. They'll be able to eat more non-GMO wheat and rice and less GMO corn and soy. They can choose non-GMO fruits and vegetables and avoid the few that are GMO. Eating non-GMO won't involve paying a premium, just making a choice between the foods that are genetically engineered and the ones that aren't. Foods that are GMO won't be able to be falsely labeled as "natural."

The GMO Labeling Law is for PepsiCo. Not Family Farmers or Small Businesses

The CA Right to Know ballot measure language is very clear. It requires the labeling of foods that contain ingredients made from genetically engineered crops. Since each of these crops must be deregulated by the USDA on an individual basis, they are very easy to keep track of. Under the proposed law, foods with these genetically engineered ingredients cannot be labeled as "natural." Food packers and processors have 18 months to comply with the law. (This time frame was chosen because it is generally the period within which labels are routinely updated.) It is very unlikely that food packers and processors will have trouble complying. 

Only food packers and processors will be effected. Farmers and grocers are not responsible for food labels. Farmers of crops that can be genetically engineered are already aware of what they're growing. Genetically engineered seed is patented, branded and marketed as GMO. Food packers and processors may decide to seek non-GMO sources to avoid the law's labeling requirements, and that may increase markets for farmers who grow non-GMO crops, but that is a different issue than simply complying with a new labeling requirement. As far as grocery stores go, unless they are knowingly complicit (for instance, in falsely labeling a store-brand product), they cannot be held responsible for the failure of a food packer or processor to follow the law.

If PepsiCo. continues to sell unlabeled genetically engineered food in CA once this law is passed, we'll definitely sue them (we'd rather see them comply), but this law creates no incentive to go after small businesses.

Look Who's Spreading Monsanto's Lies

Fresh from fights on behalf of the tobacco companies and big oil, Tom Hiltachk is now Monsanto's man in California. Hiltachk, a partner at the Sacramento-based lobbying firm Bell, McAndrews & Hiltachk, has formed a front group, the Coalition Against the Costly Food Labeling Proposition (CACFLP), to fight the November 2012 California ballot initiative to label genetically engineered foods.

In early March, CACFLP revealed its first two contributions. Both came from Washington, D.C.-based industry groups, including $375,000 from the Council for Biotechnology Information, whose members include the engineers of GMO seed, Monsanto, BASF, Bayer, Dow and Syngenta, and $250,000 from the Grocery Manufacturers Association, whose members also include Monsanto, BASF, Bayer, Dow and Syngenta, as well as the largest food processors, many of whom are currently cheating consumers by marketing high-priced so-called "natural" products that contain unlabeled GMO ingredients. For example, PepsiCo., the country's largest food processor and a board member of the GMA, markets many foods that contain GMO ingredients as "natural," including several under the brand Frito-Lay.

Monsanto made the following statement in support of CACFLP:

"Monsanto is part of a growing coalition of California farmers, food producers, grocers, retailers, and others which has been formed to oppose the California measure. As a member of both GMA (Grocery Manufacturers Association) and BIO (Biotechnology Industry Organization), we support the organizations' involvement in the California campaign to oppose the costly and extreme measure." 

Kathy Fairbanks is CACFLP's spokeswoman. She has a long history of representing corporations against the public interest, as a PR flack for the California Chamber of Commerce and corrupt auto insurance industry billionaires.

Tom Hiltachk has used his ties to Big Tobacco to enlist another industry-backed front group in the fight against our right to know: California Citizens Against Lawsuit Abuse (CALA). CALA's Maryann Marino is acting as a spokesperson for the anti-labeling side, doing her best to misinform and confuse the more than 90% of voters who want genetically engineered foods labeled.

Read on to learn more about Tom Hiltachk, Kathy Fairbanks and CALA, Monsanto's minions in California.

Tom Hiltachk

So, what do we know about Monsanto's hired gun, Tom Hiltachk? Few have kind words for this "million dollar consultant." He was badmouthed by Ted Costa, a veteran right-wing activist behind many conservative initiatives and head of the group People's Advocate. Initially allies in the Proposition 23 effort to repeal California's clean energy and climate laws, Costa soured on Hiltachk when he realized that his main motivation was to funnel the $50 million that he hoped would be raised from oil companies and the Chamber of Commerce to himself and his friends. Read more at ThinkProgress.org.

Kathy Fairbanks

Kathy Fairbanks has a long history of representing corporations against the public interest. A few of her past public relations gigs include:

The California Chamber of Commerce - Causes Fairbanks stumped for at the Chamber include urging Gov. Davis to veto bills to: limit the expansion of Big Box stores; bar businesses from using revenues from state contracts for anti-union activities; require a "Buy America" and "Buy California" preference in state contracts; and increase workers compensation benefits. At that time (1999), the Chamber was spending $2.4 million a session on lobbying. In opposing a bill to allow employees to use up to half of their annual sick leave to stay home and care for ill family members, Fairbanks warned that if the bill was signed by the governor, "some employers may decide to cut back or drop those benefits altogether."

Steve Poizner's Campaign for State Insurance Commissioner - Fairbanks was the spokeswoman for a campaign fund controlled by Steve Poizner, a wealthy Silicon Valley Republican running for state insurance commissioner, in 2005, when it had to return $1.75 million in illegal donations made by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and his campaign committee.

Californians to Stop Unfair Rate Increases - Fairbanks was the spokesperson for this front group for the insurance industry in 2006 when it was accused by State Insurance Commissioner John Garamendi of trying to blackmail and bribe him by threatening to run a $2 million ad campaign against him in his bid for lieutenant governor if he didn't drop his pending auto insurance regulations.

No on 82 (2006 - Los Angeles) - Fairbanks helped defeat Proposition 82 which would have provided credentialed teachers to 150,000 4-year-olds living in the city, funded through tax increases on individuals earning more than $400,000 a year, and on couples making more than $800,000 a year. 

No on Proposition 7 (2008) - Fairbanks was the spokesperson for opposition to a California ballot measure to require half the state's electricity to come from renewable sources by 2025.

Californians for Fair Auto Insurance Rates - C-FAIR, another insurance industry front-group, was set up by billionaire Mercury insurance executive George Joseph to launch a California ballot initiative to raise rates on those who have gone without coverage - despite a voter-approved law banning the practice. Fairbanks' work on the 2010 ballot initiative was investigated in a San Francisco Bay Guardian piece called "Buying Power: How PG&E and Mercury Insurance Are Spending Millions to Try to Trick Californians into Voting for Corporate Interests," and a San Diego Union Tribune article, "Insurer Veils Its Funding of Measure: Literature for Prop. 17 Omits Mercury's Millions." During the initiative battle, the state Department of Insurance accused Mercury of illegal practices, including unfairly denying coverage and charging discriminatory rates to motorists who were not at fault in accidents, were members of the armed forces or worked in certain professions. It found Mercury had a "lengthy history of serious misconduct" and an attitude of "contempt toward and/or abuse of its customers, the [insurance] commissioner, its competition and the Superior Court." Mercury paid $300,000 to settle the allegations.

CALA

CALA is a "grassroots" group created by corporations to support changes to the legal system to make it harder to bring lawsuits for injuries and illnesses caused by hazardous products. 

CALA is part of a national, corporate-backed network of front groups coordinated by the American Tort Reform Association (ATRA) which receives substantial financial and strategic assistance from the tobacco industry and America's biggest corporations, including Philip Morris, Dow Chemical (currently seeking approval for Agent Orange Corn), Exxon, General Electric, Aetna, Geico and Nationwide. 

ATRA now keeps its membership secret, but according to a 1993 American University Law Review article by PR Sugarman, "As of January 1989, the General Membership and Steering Committee of ATRA included hundreds of trade associations and corporations, including such representative organizations as Allstate Insurance, American Trucking Association, Chemical Manufacturers Association, E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Company, Exxon Company, U.S.A., General Aviation Manufacturers Association, Monsanto Chemical Company, National Association of Chain Drug Stores, National Association of Manufacturers, Pharmaceutical Manufacturers Association, Procter & Gamble Company, RJR/Nabisco, Inc., and Sporting Goods Manufacturing Association."

According to "Justice For Sale: Shortchanging the Public Interest for Private Gain," a 1993 report by the Alliance for Justice, "The ATRA is made up of corporation trade groups such as the National Association of Manufacturers, the Chemical Manufacturers Association, the Pharmaceutical Manufacturers Association -- thus giving corporations a decoy and accomplice group two full steps removed from their board rooms."

In 2008, the last time they made any of their members public, a list of "sample members" included Kraft Foods Inc., the 3rd largest packaged food company in the U.S. Kraft opposes GMO labels, but defends its use of GMOs.

In return for Monsanto's support, ATRA has been a relentless cheerleader for the company's lawlessness.

ATRA applauded Monsanto for skirting plaintiffs' claims for medical monitoring after Monsanto was found to have been knowingly polluting the small town of Anniston, Alabama, with dangerous levels of Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs). (The residents surrounding the Monsanto plant were predominantly minorities. The first lawsuit, brought in state court, went to trial and the jury found Monsanto guilty of a variety of torts, including negligence, nuisance and trespass. This case was eventually folded into a similar federal case, concluding in a global settlement fining Monsanto 700 million dollars for its egregious behavior toward the Anniston residents.)

ATRA's publication, Judicial Hellholes, in a post titled, "Food Eaters 1, Uncompetitive Organics Industry 0," calls atrazine, the infamous endocrine disrupting pesticide, "a safe and widely used weed killer," and characterized the non-GMO farmers' lawsuit against Monsanto to stop the company from pursuing patent infringement claims when their crops are contaminated with engineered DNA, this way:

Why, if one were to ingest too many organic soybeans, one might deliriously imagine a conspiracy of trial lawyers, self-proclaimed consumer advocates and failing organic farmers trying desperately (and transparently) to raise the costs of more conventional farming by any means necessary -- including wave after wave of meritless lawsuits, all designed to make relatively high-priced organic food products more competitive in the marketplace.

This one lawsuit bothers ATRA, but it has no problem with Monsanto, which, by its own admission, has "filed suit against farmers 145 times in the United States"?!

Read more about California CALA's initial funding, in this report by the ...Center for Justice & Democracy and Public Citizen from 2000.

Monsanto has funded numerous front groups, including the American Council on Science & Health, American Tort Reform Association, Compliance Management and Policy Group, Council for Agricultural Science & Technology, FoodWatch, the National Institute for Chemical Studies, and the Pacific Legal Foundation. Reporters should be skeptical of spokespersons with ties to these groups who claim to represent farmers and small business owners.This piece was reprinted by Truthout with permission or license.

Gulf of Mexico seafood deformities alarm scientists

ORIGINAL: AlJazzera

Dahr Jamail Last Modified: 18 Apr 2012 03:16

Eyeless shrimp and fish with lesions are becoming common, with BP oil pollution believed to be the likely cause.

New Orleans, LA - "The fishermen have never seen anything like this," Dr Jim Cowan told Al Jazeera. "And in my 20 years working on red snapper, looking at somewhere between 20 and 30,000 fish, I've never seen anything like this either."

Dr Cowan, with Louisiana State University's Department of Oceanography and Coastal Sciences started hearing about fish with sores and lesions from fishermen in November 2010.

Cowan's findings replicate those of others living along vast areas of the Gulf Coast that have been impacted by BP's oil and dispersants.

Gulf of Mexico fishermen, scientists and seafood processors have told Al Jazeera they are finding disturbing numbers of mutated shrimp, crab and fish that they believe are deformed by chemicals released during BP's 2010 oil disaster.

Along with collapsing fisheries, signs of malignant impact on the regional ecosystem are ominous: horribly mutated shrimp, fish with oozing sores, underdeveloped blue crabs lacking claws, eyeless crabs and shrimp - and interviewees' fingers point towards BP's oil pollution disaster as being the cause.

Eyeless shrimp

Tracy Kuhns and her husband Mike Roberts, commercial fishers from Barataria, Louisiana, are finding eyeless shrimp.

"At the height of the last white shrimp season, in September, one of our friends caught 400 pounds of these," Kuhns told Al Jazeera while showing a sample of the eyeless shrimp.

According to Kuhns, at least 50 per cent of the shrimp caught in that period in Barataria Bay, a popular shrimping area that was heavily impacted by BP's oil and dispersants, were eyeless. Kuhns added: "Disturbingly, not only do the shrimp lack eyes, they even lack eye sockets."

Eyeless shrimp, from a catch of 400 pounds of eyeless shrimp, said to be caught September 22, 2011, in Barataria Bay, Louisiana [Erika Blumenfeld/Al Jazeera]

"Some shrimpers are catching these out in the open Gulf [of Mexico]," she added, "They are also catching them in Alabama and Mississippi. We are also finding eyeless crabs, crabs with their shells soft instead of hard, full grown crabs that are one-fifth their normal size, clawless crabs, and crabs with shells that don't have their usual spikes … they look like they've been burned off by chemicals."

On April 20, 2010, BP's Deepwater Horizon oilrig exploded, and began the release of at least 4.9 million barrels of oil. BP then used at least 1.9 million gallons of toxic Corexit dispersants to sink the oil.

Keath Ladner, a third generation seafood processor in Hancock County, Mississippi, is also disturbed by what he is seeing.

"I've seen the brown shrimp catch drop by two-thirds, and so far the white shrimp have been wiped out," Ladner told Al Jazeera. "The shrimp are immune compromised. We are finding shrimp with tumors on their heads, and are seeing this everyday."

While on a shrimp boat in Mobile Bay with Sidney Schwartz, the fourth-generation fisherman said that he had seen shrimp with defects on their gills, and "their shells missing around their gills and head".

"We've fished here all our lives and have never seen anything like this," he added.

Ladner has also seen crates of blue crabs, all of which were lacking at least one of their claws.

Darla Rooks, a lifelong fisherperson from Port Sulfur, Louisiana, told Al Jazeera she is finding crabs "with holes in their shells, shells with all the points burned off so all the spikes on their shells and claws are gone, misshapen shells, and crabs that are dying from within … they are still alive, but you open them up and they smell like they've been dead for a week".

Rooks is also finding eyeless shrimp, shrimp with abnormal growths, female shrimp with their babies still attached to them, and shrimp with oiled gills.

"We also seeing eyeless fish, and fish lacking even eye-sockets, and fish with lesions, fish without covers over their gills, and others with large pink masses hanging off their eyes and gills."

Rooks, who grew up fishing with her parents, said she had never seen such things in these waters, and her seafood catch last year was "ten per cent what it normally is".

"I've never seen this," he said, a statement Al Jazeera heard from every scientist, fisherman, and seafood processor we spoke with about the seafood deformities.

Given that the Gulf of Mexico provides more than 40 per cent of all the seafood caught in the continental US, this phenomenon does not bode well for the region, or the country.

BP's chemicals?

"The dispersants used in BP's draconian experiment contain solvents, such as petroleum distillates and 2-butoxyethanol. Solvents dissolve oil, grease, and rubber," Dr Riki Ott, a toxicologist, marine biologist and Exxon Valdez survivor told Al Jazeera. "It should be no surprise that solvents are also notoriously toxic to people, something the medical community has long known".

The dispersants are known to be mutagenic, a disturbing fact that could be evidenced in the seafood deformities. Shrimp, for example, have a life-cycle short enough that two to three generations have existed since BP's disaster began, giving the chemicals time to enter the genome.

Pathways of exposure to the dispersants are inhalation, ingestion, skin, and eye contact. Health impacts can include headaches, vomiting, diarrhea, abdominal pains, chest pains, respiratory system damage, skin sensitisation, hypertension, central nervous system depression, neurotoxic effects, cardiac arrhythmia and cardiovascular damage. They are also teratogenic - able to disturb the growth and development of an embryo or fetus - and carcinogenic.

Cowan believes chemicals named polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), released from BP's submerged oil, are likely to blame for what he is finding, due to the fact that the fish with lesions he is finding are from "a wide spatial distribution that is spatially coordinated with oil from the Deepwater Horizon, both surface oil and subsurface oil. A lot of the oil that impacted Louisiana was also in subsurface plumes, and we think there is a lot of it remaining on the seafloor".

Marine scientist Samantha Joye of the University of Georgia published results of her submarine dives around the source area of BP's oil disaster in the Nature Geoscience journal.

Her evidence showed massive swathes of oil covering the seafloor, including photos of oil-covered bottom dwelling sea creatures.

While showing slides at an American Association for the Advancement of Science annual conference in Washington, Joye said: "This is Macondo oil on the bottom. These are dead organisms because of oil being deposited on their heads."

Dr Wilma Subra, a chemist and Macarthur Fellow, has conducted tests on seafood and sediment samples along the Gulf for chemicals present in BP's crude oil and toxic dispersants.

"Tests have shown significant levels of oil pollution in oysters and crabs along the Louisiana coastline," Subra told Al Jazeera. "We have also found high levels of hydrocarbons in the soil and vegetation."

According to the US Environmental Protection Agency, PAHs "are a group of semi-volatile organic compounds that are present in crude oil that has spent time in the ocean and eventually reaches shore, and can be formed when oil is burned".

"The fish are being exposed to PAHs, and I was able to find several references that list the same symptoms in fish after the Exxon Valdez spill, as well as other lab experiments," explained Cowan. "There was also a paper published by some LSU scientists that PAH exposure has effects on the genome."

The University of South Florida released the results of a survey whose findings corresponded with Cowan's: a two to five per cent infection rate in the same oil impact areas, and not just with red snapper, but with more than 20 species of fish with lesions. In many locations, 20 per cent of the fish had lesions, and later sampling expeditions found areas where, alarmingly, 50 per cent of the fish had them.

"I asked a NOAA [National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration] sampler what percentage of fish they find with sores prior to 2010, and it's one tenth of one percent," Cowan said. "Which is what we found prior to 2010 as well. But nothing like we've seen with these secondary infections and at this high of rate since the spill."

"What we think is that it's attributable to chronic exposure to PAHs released in the process of weathering of oil on the seafloor," Cowan said. "There's no other thing we can use to explain this phenomenon. We've never seen anything like this before."

Official response

Questions raised by Al Jazeera's investigation remain largely unanswered.

Al Jazeera contacted the office of Louisiana governor Bobby Jindal, who provided a statement that said the state continues to test its waters for oil and dispersants, and that it is testing for PAHs.

"Gulf seafood has consistently tested lower than the safety thresholds established by the FDA for the levels of oil and dispersant contamination that would pose a risk to human health," the statement reads. "Louisiana seafood continues to go through extensive testing to ensure that seafood is safe for human consumption. More than 3,000 composite samples of seafood, sediment and water have been tested in Louisiana since the start of the spill."

Signs of the impact on the regional ecosystem are ominous: mutated shrimp, fish with oozing sores, underdeveloped blue crabs lacking claws, eyeless crabs and shrimp - and scientists and fishermen point fingers towards BP's oil as being the cause [Keath Ladner]

At the federal government level, the Food and Drug Administration and Environmental Protection Agency - both federal agencies which have powers in the this area - insisted Al Jazeera talk with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). 

NOAA won't comment to the media because its involvement in collecting information for an ongoing lawsuit against BP.

BP refused Al Jazeera's request to comment on this issue for a television interview, but provided a statement that read:

"Seafood from the Gulf of Mexico is among the most tested in the world, and, according to the FDA and NOAA, it is as safe now as it was before the accident."

BP claims that fish lesions are common, and that prior to the Deepwater Horizon accident there was documented evidence of lesions in the Gulf of Mexico caused by parasites and other agents.

The oil giant added: 

"As part of the Natural Resource Damage Assessment, which is led by state and federal trustees, we are investigating the extent of injury to natural resources due to the accident".

"BP is funding multiple lines of scientific investigation to evaluate potential damage to fish, and these include: extensive seafood testing programs by the Gulf states; fish population monitoring conducted by the Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries, Auburn University and others; habitat and water quality monitoring by NOAA; and toxicity tests on regional species. The state and federal Trustees will complete an injury assessment and the need for environmental restoration will be determined."

Before and after

But evidence of ongoing contamination continues to mount.

Crustacean biologist Darryl Felder, in the Department of Biology with the University of Louisiana at Lafayette is in a unique position.

Felder has been monitoring the vicinity of BP's blowout Macondo well both before and after the oil disaster began, because, as he told Al Jazeera, "the National Science Foundation was interested in these areas that are vulnerable due to all the drilling".

"So we have before and after samples to compare to," he added. "We have found seafood with lesions, missing appendages, and other abnormalities."

Felder also has samples of inshore crabs with lesions. "Right here in Grand Isle we see lesions that are eroding down through their shell. We just got these samples last Thursday and are studying them now, because we have no idea what else to link this to as far as a natural event."

According to Felder, there is an even higher incidence of shell disease with crabs in deeper waters.

"My fear is that these prior incidents of lesions might be traceable to microbes, and my questions are, did we alter microbial populations in the vicinity of the well by introducing this massive amount of petroleum and in so doing cause microbes to attack things other than oil?"

One hypothesis he has is that the waxy coatings around crab shells are being impaired by anthropogenic chemicals or microbes resulting from such chemicals.

"You create a site where a lesion can occur, and microbes attack. We see them with big black lesions, around where their appendages fall off, and all that is left is a big black ring."

Felder added that his team is continuing to document the incidents: "And from what we can tell, there is a far higher incidence we're finding after the spill."

"We are also seeing much lower diversity of crustaceans," he said. "We don't have the same number of species as we did before [the spill]."

[Continues below the slideshow]

On April 20, 2010, the United States experienced the beginning of the country's largest environmental disaster in its history, when the Deepwater Horizon oil rig exploded and sank, flooding the Gulf of Mexico with at least 4.9 million barrels of crude oil over an 87-day period. Erika Blumenfeld/Al Jazeera

Compounding the devastating effects of the oil itself, were at least 1.9m gallons of toxic chemicals and industrial solvents which where poured into the ocean in an attempt to disperse the oil.

Erika Blumenfeld/Al Jazeera

Many of these chemicals, such as the petroleum distillates and especially 2-butoxyethanol, are medically known to be teratogenic, mutagenic, and carcinogenic, and exposure to them can lead to a long list of serious health effects, including death.

Erika Blumenfeld/Al Jazeera

Marine and wildlife throughout the region were exposed to the oil and dispersants, resulting in mass deaths of many species including turtles, dolphins, birds, fish and crustaceans

Erika Blumenfeld/Al Jazeera

Fishermen and women along the Gulf Coast are telling of record low seasonal harvests of shrimp, oysters, and fish, with many of the coastal leases yielding 75-90 percent less than normal.

Erika Blumenfeld/Al Jazeera

Keath Ladner, a third generation seafood processor in Hancock County, Mississippi, told Al Jazeera that the brown shrimp catch has dropped by two-thirds, and that the white shrimp have been wiped out.

Erika Blumenfeld/Al Jazeera

Most commercial fishing areas in the oil disaster effected areas are open to commercial fishing, and the state and federal governments have declared that the seafood is safe and is not testing positive to the toxic oil and dispersant chemicals.

Erika Blumenfeld/Al Jazeera

Tracy Khuns and Mike Roberts, commercial fishers from Barataria Bay, Louisiana, have been finding eyeless shrimp and other seafood deformities in their waters, and believe the cause to be chemicals from BP's oil and dispersants.

Erika Blumenfeld/Al Jazeera

Kuhn's told Al Jazeera that in September 2011 their friend caught 400 pounds of eyeless white shrimp, and said that at least 50 per cent of the shrimp caught in that period in Barataria Bay, an area heavily impacted by BP's oil and dispersants, were eyeless.

Erika Blumenfeld/Al Jazeera

When asked to comment on the allegations that scientists and fishermen are saying about deformed seafood and low populations, BP provided Al Jazeera with this statement: "Seafood from the Gulf of Mexico is among the most tested in the world, and according to the FDA and NOAA, it is as safe now as it was before the accident."

Erika Blumenfeld/Al Jazeera

Jonathan Henderson of Gulf Restoration Network, continues to find tar balls along the beaches and oil in the marshes of Louisiana. Al Jazeera recently documented massive submerged tar mats being excavated by BP clean up crews.

Erika Blumenfeld/Al Jazeera

There continue to be unexplained mass deaths of many species along the coast, from dolphins to birds. Gulf Coast residents and scientists are concerned for the future and the health of their ecosystems and the food chain.

Erika Blumenfeld/Al Jazeera

Felder has tested his samples for oil, but not found many cases where hydrocarbon traces tested positive. Instead, he believes what he is seeing in the deepwater around BP's well is caused from the "huge amount" of drilling mud used during the effort to stop the gushing well.

"I was collecting deepwater shrimp with lesions on the side of their carapace. Under the lesions, the gills were black. The organ that propels the water through the gills, it too was jet-black. That impairs respiratory ability, and has a negative effect on them. It wasn't hydrocarbons, but is largely manganese precipitates, which is really odd. There was a tremendous amount of drilling mud pumped out with Macondo, so this could be a link."

Some drilling mud and oil well cement slurries used on oil extraction rigs contains up to 90 per cent by weight of manganomanganic (manganese) oxide particles.

Felder is also finding "odd staining" of animals that burrow into the mud that cause stain rings, and said: "It is consistently mineral deposits, possibly from microbial populations in [overly] high concentrations."

A direct link

Dr Andrew Whitehead, an associate professor of biology at Louisiana State University, co-authored the report Genomic and physiological footprint of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill on resident marsh fishes that was published in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences in October 2011.

Whitehead's work is of critical importance, as it shows a direct link between BP's oil and the negative impacts on the Gulf's food web evidenced by studies on killifish before, during and after the oil disaster.

"What we found is a very clear, genome-wide signal, a very clear signal of exposure to the toxic components of oil that coincided with the timing and the locations of the oil," Whitehead told Al Jazeera during an interview in his lab.

According to Whitehead, the killifish is an important indicator species because they are the most abundant fish in the marshes, and are known to be the most important forage animal in their communities.

"That means that most of the large fish that we like to eat and that these are important fisheries for, actually feed on the killifish," he explained. "So if there were to be a big impact on those animals, then there would probably be a cascading effect throughout the food web. I can't think of a worse animal to knock out of the food chain than the killifish."

But we may well be witnessing the beginnings of this worst-case scenario.

Whitehead is predicting that there could be reproductive impacts on the fish, and since the killifish is a "keystone" species in the food web of the marsh, "Impacts on those species are more than likely going to propagate out and effect other species. What this shows is a very direct link from exposure to DWH oil and a clear biological effect. And a clear biological effect that could translate to population level long-term consequences."

Back on shore, troubled by what he had been seeing, Keath Ladner met with officials from the US Food and Drug Administration and asked them to promise that the government would protect him from litigation if someone was made sick from eating his seafood.

"They wouldn't do it," he said.

"I'm worried about the entire seafood industry of the Gulf being on the way out," he added grimly.

'Tar balls in their crab traps'

Ed Cake, a biological oceanographer, as well as a marine and oyster biologist, has "great concern" about the hundreds of dolphin deaths he has seen in the region since BP's disaster began, which he feels are likely directly related to the BP oil disaster.

"Adult dolphins' systems are picking up whatever is in the system out there, and we know the oil is out there and working its way up the food chain through the food web - and dolphins are at the top of that food chain."

Cake explained: "The chemicals then move into their lipids, fat, and then when they are pregnant, their young rely on this fat, and so it's no wonder dolphins are having developmental issues and still births."

Cake, who lives in Mississippi, added: "It has been more than 33 years since the 1979 Ixtoc-1 oil disaster in Mexico's Bay of Campeche, and the oysters, clams, and mangrove forests have still not recovered in their oiled habitats in seaside estuaries of the Yucatan Peninsula. It has been 23 years since the 1989 Exxon Valdez oil disaster in Alaska, and the herring fishery that failed in the wake of that disaster has still not returned."

Cake believes we are still in the short-term impact stage of BP's oil disaster.

"I will not be alive to see the Gulf of Mexico recover," said Cake, who is 72 years old. "Without funding and serious commitment, these things will not come back to pre-April 2010 levels for decades."

The physical signs of the disaster continue.

"We're continuing to pull up oil in our nets," Rooks said. "Think about losing everything that makes you happy, because that is exactly what happens when someone spills oil and sprays dispersants on it. People who live here know better than to swim in or eat what comes out of our waters."

Khuns and her husband told Al Jazeera that fishermen continue to regularly find tar balls in their crab traps, and hundreds of pounds of tar balls continue to be found on beaches across the region on a daily basis.

Meanwhile Cowan continues his work, and remains concerned about what he is finding.

"We've also seen a decrease in biodiversity in fisheries in certain areas. We believe we are now seeing another outbreak of incidence increasing, and this makes sense, since waters are starting to warm again, so bacterial infections are really starting to take off again. We think this is a problem that will persist for as long as the oil is stored on the seafloor."

Felder wants to continue his studies, but now is up against insufficient funding.

Regarding his funding, Cowan told Al Jazeera: "We are up against social and economic challenges that hamper our ability to get our information out, so the politics have been as daunting as the problem [we are studying] itself. But my funding is not coming from a source that requires me to be quiet."

Follow Dahr Jamail on Twitter: @DahrJamail

Read more about the scientists in this article, and their findings:

Dr Darryl Felder, Department of Biology, University of Louisiana, Lafayette. Runs a research lab that studies the biology of marine crustaceans. Dr Felder has been monitoring the seafloor in the vicinity of BP's blow-out Macondo oil-well both before and after the oil disaster began. He was studying samples from the seafloor in the Macondo area pre-spill via funding from the National Science Foundation, which provided him a grant to log the effects of all the drilling in the area. His funding now comes from the Gulf Research Initiative (GRI), which is funded by BP. Read his full biography here.

Dr Jim Cowan with Louisiana State University's Department of Oceanography and Coastal Sciences has been studying Gulf seafood, specifically red snapper, for more than 20 years. Funding is primarily via LSU, although LSU has also received funding via GRI. Read his full biography here.

Dr Andrew Whitehead, LSU, his lab conducts experiments and studies on Evolutionary and Ecological Genomics. He recently published "Genomic and physiological footprint of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill on resident marsh fishes" in the National Academy of Sciences. Much of his funding also comes from the Gulf Research Initiative. Read his full biography here.

Brief summary of scientists' findings/studies:

Felder: Studies carried out from January 2010 to present in BP's Macondo well area. Found abnormalities in shrimp post-spill, whereas pre-spill found none.

Cowan: Studies carried out from Nov 2010-present, from west Louisiana to west Florida, from coast to 250km out. Found lesions/sores/infections in 20 species of fish, as many as 50 per cent fish in some samples impacted. Pre spill levels were 1/10 of one per cent of fish.

Whitehead: Species such as the Gulf Killifish, in and around the Gulf of Mexico, will continue to be subject to negative effects of the BP oil spill disaster of 2010. The Killifish, which researchers consider a good indicator of water quality in the Gulf of Mexico, is showing signs that the oil spill is having a negative impact on its health. Tracked killifish for the first four months after spill across oil-impacted areas of Louisiana and Mississippi.

Los agricultores ecológicos se unen contra Monsanto en la batalla por el futuro de la Alimentación

ORIGINAL: Singularity Hub

abril 19, 2011

Agricultores entablan demanda para protegerse de las prácticas agresivas de Monsanto.

Otro capítulo de la saga en curso de David y Goliat-esque entre los agricultores orgánicos y la empresa Monsanto inició recientemente con una demanda presentada en una corte federal. La demanda, titulada Asociación de Comerciantes y Productores de Semillas Orgánicas , y otros. v. Monsanto, es un esfuerzo de un grupo de granjas familiares, empresas de semillas y las asociaciones de productores orgánicos tanto para protegerse de ser demandados por Monsanto y socavar sus patentes sobre las semillas genéticamente modificadas o transgénicas. La Fundación Pública de Patentes presentó la demanda en nombre de los agricultores y las organizaciones, que en conjunto representan más de 270.000 miembros. Si bien puede parecer más que otro intento desesperado por un pequeño grupo de rebeldes contra un imperio poderoso, implacable, esta demanda tiene el potencial de detener las prácticas de intimidación de la sociedad y socavar su base permanente.

Como muchos lectores probablemente saben, los alimentos genéticamente modificados son altamente prevalente en los Estados y una cantidad cada vez mayor de semillas transgénicas está siendo utilizada en otros países, aunque siguen siendo cuestiones de reglamentación. Desde la revolución genética de la década de 1970, el interés en el uso de la tecnología genética para producir mejores alimentos ha abundado, y una forma obvia de lograrlo es hacer que las plantas sean más robustas a los cambios ambientales y patógenos, que en última instancia conducen a un mejor rendimiento. El enfoque de Monsanto ha sido el desarrollo de la tecnología que hace que las plantas genéticamente resistentes a los herbicidas, por lo que los campos pueden ser rociadas con herbicidas de la compañía, llamado Roundup, sin pérdida de la cosecha. Las forma como las plantas de Monsanto son inmunizados fue incorporar genes de otros organismos en los genomas de plantas naturales, la patente de su tecnología y luego venden las semillas transgénicas a los agricultores.

Entonces, ¿cómo podría un gran avance tecnológico, aparentemente de una empresa que pretende respaldar a los agricultores llegar a ser votado como la mayoría de la Corporación del mal, según una encuesta NaturalNews, y se convierten en los temas de algunos ojos la apertura de los documentales, como alimentos, Inc. y El Futuro de los alimentos? Fundamentalmente, se reduce a tres cosas:

1. Monsanto defiende agresivamente sus patentes.

La agresividad? Digámoslo de esta manera ... Monsanto pone el "agro" en la ley de patentes agrícolas. Lo peor es que los genes están patentados. Así que digamos que un agricultor A utiliza semillas de Monsanto junto a un agricultor B que está usando semillas las transmite a través de la familia. Si el viento sopla en sentido contrario, una semilla cae en la piel de ratones de campo, los equipos compartidos se contaminan o de cualquier otra manera posible de que una semilla transgénica o un gen patentado llegaran a obtener de los agricultores del campo A a los cultivos de los agricultores B y, a continuación Monsanto se entera de ello, las probabilidades son que la compañía B demande a los agricultores en caso de infracción de patentes.

2. Monsanto ha empujado fuertemente su negocio de semillas transgénicas.

La demanda alega que en la actualidad el 85-90% de todas las semillas de soya, maíz, algodón, remolacha azucarera y colza cultivada en los Estados Unidos contienen genes patentados por Monsanto, principalmente comercializados bajo la marca Roundup Ready, y su alcance global que se extiende es. Así es - todos estamos ya consumiendo de estos alimentos modificados genéticamente.

3. Las semillas transgénicas y las semillas naturales no pueden coexistir ... y Monsanto lo sabe.

A diferencia de un fabricante tradicional que continuamente debe hacer el producto, las plantas derivadas de las semillas transgénicas de Monsanto necesitan más semillas transgénicas como parte de su reproducción. Con éxito la introducción de semillas transgénicas en los cultivos de forma permanente los lugares del gen en el genoma de la especie. En la demanda se pone adelante la canola orgánica que se extinguieron después de la contaminación de la semilla transgénica y advierte que el futuro de muchos cultivos, incluyendo maíz orgánico, soya, algodón, remolacha y alfalfa, correrán la misma suerte. Es imposible que una empresa que tiene la habilidad científica para desarrollar este tipo de tecnología genética y sin embargo, ser ignorante de la genética de poblaciones dentro de un ecosistema. En otras palabras, Monsanto sólo tiene que esperar su tiempo antes de que sus genes patentados hayan encontrado su camino en los sistemas agrícolas del mundo y entonces todo el mundo tendrá que comprar sus productos.

A la luz de estos puntos, lo que en la tierra podría esta demanda poco realmente lograr, sobre todo cuando un grupo conocido como el Elite Orgánica, que consiste en Whole Foods Market, Organic Valley, y Stonyfield Farm, efectivamente se rindieron a Monsanto el pasado mes de enero?

Resulta mucho.

Gracias a una demanda anterior que fue controvertido en favor de Monsanto el pasado año, la oportunidad se dio a la comunidad orgánica y cualquier otra persona preocupada por preservar un suministro de alimentos libres de transgénicos. La Corte Suprema revocó un fallo de un tribunal de distrito de San Francisco, que había dicho que el USDA ha aprobado las semillas de Monsanto Alfalfa Roundup Ready ilegal y prohibió las ventas hasta que el USDA completado una investigación. Sin embargo, en esa misma audiencia, el Tribunal también reconoció que la pérdida económica debido a la contaminación genética o el flujo de genes ya que constituye "daño ambiental", que es la antítesis de la protección por patente. Esto significa que una tecnología sólo puede ser protegido por una patente si se puede demostrar ser benéfica para el bienestar de la sociedad.

Así que si alguien puede venir y mostrar que la tecnología de semillas de Monsanto estaban causando daños al medio ambiente, ya sea económicamente o genéticamente, a los individuos y / o la sociedad en su conjunto, a continuación, las patentes pueden ser anuladas y, por tanto no es ejecutable.

Entran los Productores de Semillas y la Asociación de Comercio Orgánico.

Como el demandante en este caso, esta asociación está tratando de proteger a los agricultores de ser demandado, con seguridad, pero lo que realmente quiere lograr es nada menos que Monsanto quede cojeando para siempre. Si las patentes pueden ser anuladas, a continuación, no sólo los juicios de Monsanto contra cualquier persona-que-accidentalmente-usa-a-transgénica de semillas de parar, pero nadie-que-se preocupa-sobre-alimentación demandas contra Monsanto van a siguen llegando.

Si bien la demanda plantea muchos problemas y emociones acerca de la comida y el futuro de la sociedad, su pena tomar un momento para reflexionar sobre la realidad de lo que significa todo esto.

Sin una sombra de duda, los alimentos genéticamente modificados fueron determinados a formar parte de nuestro futuro. Hay algunas personas que les gusta la idea de la comida que es completamente natural crecido que nunca es contaminado por nada, pero, francamente, ese enfoque sólo funcionaba cuando se produjo el uno por ciento de la población humana de hoy. La conclusión es que el mundo necesita más alimentos y las empresas necesitan la industria alimentaria para ser rentable. La revolución de la genética abre la puerta a reforzar el ADN de plantas y animales que proporcionan los alimentos contra las condiciones nocivas y organismos para crear súper alimentos ricos en nutrientes. Sólo tiene sentido que en los alimentos a su debido tiempo sería genéticamente modificados para satisfacer las demandas de todos. Pero es evidente que la investigación debía hacerse con cuidado, respetando la naturaleza y el desarrollo de productos se debería haber hecho con una cantidad significativa de supervisión.
farmers_market

Puede ser demasiado tarde, incluso para los mercados de alimentos orgánicos para proteger a los consumidores de la tecnología genética de Monsanto

El verdadero problema que esta demanda se subraya Monsanto ha sido displicente en sus prácticas empresariales. La compañía ha adoptado una postura irresponsable sobre el impacto negativo de su tecnología podría tener sobre los cultivos en todo el mundo, en lugar de centrarse en la elección de penetración en el mercado y las ganancias. La ciencia sólo ha arañado la superficie sobre la función compleja entre la genética, la dieta y el medio ambiente, así como en el mundo puede hacer un reclamo la empresa que la introducción de un gen extraño en el ADN de una semilla que va a estar a salvo de todo y de todos, tanto ahora como en un futuro lejano? No pueden, pero la ley no les obliga y eso es un problema perjudicial. El sistema legal tiene que ponerse al día con las realidades de la Edad de Genética y rápido.

Las empresas se dan a menudo de crédito para hacer del mundo un lugar mejor, pero sin duda ninguna empresa quiere a la historia como el que corrompió la cadena alimentaria. Esperamos que esta demanda puede por lo menos proteger a los agricultores orgánicos, pero sólo tal vez, finalmente se puso el gigante agrícola en su lugar. Por desgracia, puede ser demasiado tarde para algunos cultivos. Tenemos que recuperar la sobriedad a una triste verdad: gracias a las políticas agresivas y ecológicamente desastrosos de Monsanto, que puede estar comiendo un gen de Monsanto con cada cucharada si queremos o no.

[IMAGEN: sxc, sxc]

[FUENTE: FastCompany, Grist, Monsantoblog, NaturalNews, Alianza de semillas orgánicas, OSGATA, PubPat,
Artículos relacionados