Welcome to NexusFi: the best trading community on the planet, with over 150,000 members Sign Up Now for Free
Genuine reviews from real traders, not fake reviews from stealth vendors
Quality education from leading professional traders
We are a friendly, helpful, and positive community
We do not tolerate rude behavior, trolling, or vendors advertising in posts
We are here to help, just let us know what you need
You'll need to register in order to view the content of the threads and start contributing to our community. It's free for basic access, or support us by becoming an Elite Member -- see if you qualify for a discount below.
-- Big Mike, Site Administrator
(If you already have an account, login at the top of the page)
Over 2,000 farmers and others within the food industry are threatening to take the US government to court to make sure that feds act quickly in investigating the potential outcome of a new genetically modified crop.
A coalition of concerned members of America’s agriculture community said on Wednesday that they will take legal action to ensure that the federal government investigates what will happen if biotech companies are allowed to proceed with a space-age, man-made variant of corn.
As RT reported last week, Dow Chemical is awaiting the government’s go-ahead to start using a mutated corn crop that is resistant to a powerful pesticide produced with 2,4-D, the same compound crucial to the make-up of the notorious Vietnam War-era killer Agent Orange. Once approved, the new corn will be able to thrive as farmers douse their fields in the pesticide, eradicating unwanted weeds in the process.
Opponents are concerned that the aftermath of a surge in the chemical’s use could be catastrophic for people, plants and the agriculture industry as a whole, though.
"These are the most dangerous chemicals out there," attorney John Bode tells Reuters. Bode is fighting on behalf of the Save Our Crops Coalition to have Washington intervene and is no stranger to how the government goes about these matters — he served as assistant secretary of agriculture in the Reagan administration.
While The Natural Resources Defense Council has tied 2,4-D to cases of cancer, genetic mutations and neurotoxicity, it’s not even just humans that are expected to be affected by the pesticide. “These herbicides have been known to drift and volatilize to cause damage to plants over 10 miles away from the point of application,” the Save Our Crops Coalition pleads.
Last week the Environmental Protection Agency threw out a petition that asked them to ban the sale of the pesticide. Despite pleas from opponents at the National Resource Defense Council and the Center for Food Safety, the EPA said they would continue to allow the pesticide in question to be sold. While 2,4-D is currently a regularly used chemical in crop fields, the expected introduction of a corn variant immune to it is expected to cause a spike in sales — and, in turn, disease.
“There’s no reason to continue allowing a toxic Agent Orange-ingredient in the places our children play, our families live and our farmers work. EPA must step up and finally put a stop to it,” Dr. Gina Solomon, of the UCSF OEM Residency and Fellowship Program wrote.
In addition to Dow’s plan to use 2,4-D on crops immune to its effects, the Monsanto corporation is also planning a new crop that will be resistant to a similar herbicide made with the herbicide dicamba.
"The danger that 2,4-D and dicamba pose is a real threat to crops…nearly every food crop," Steve Smith, director of agriculture at Red Gold, tells Reuters. Red Cold, the world's largest canned tomato processor, is joined in the opposition by companies that grow crops for brands including Del Monte and Seneca. Members of the Save Our Crops Coalition also include the Indiana Vegetable Growers Association and the Ohio Produce Growers and Marketers Association.
Although the EPA has decided to continue the sale of 2,4-D, the Save Our Crops Coalition is asking the agency to conduct a Scientific Advisory Panel meeting and draft advisors to oversee a panel that would address the issue of herbicide spray drift.
They are also demanding through their lawyers that the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) investigate what impact could occur if the new crop is approved and pesticide sales go up. The US federal regulatory process requires both the EPA and USDA to respond to the coalition’s legal petition. After which, they can file a federal lawsuit to demand answers.
Invincible agricultural giant Monsanto has once again demonstrated its ability to crush countries on the legal battlefield. The EFSA has ruled there is no “scientific evidence” of damage caused by consuming genetically-modified maize.
*France is the latest country to try and battle Monsanto over its genetically-modified corn. In February it requested that the European Commission ban the MON 810 strain from EU markets, supporting the request with scientific argumentation. While awaiting the decision, French government unilaterally reinstalled a ban on MON 810, though the country’s highest court had earlier ruled in favor of Monsanto.
It took the European Food Safety Authority three months to come to a quite predictable conclusion – that the strain poses no threat, and will not be banned.
“Based on the documentation submitted by France, there is no specific scientific evidence, in terms of risk to human and animal health or the environment,” the EFSA’s scientific opinion suggests.
*The European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) provides the European Commission with independent scientific advice on all matters with a direct or indirect impact on food safety. It is a separate legal entity, independent from other EU institutions.
*The EU health commission has decided to follow this “independent scientific advice” and now faces a problem of how to push France to raise its ban.
“The commission will wait for the conclusions of the next environment ministers’ meeting June 11 in Luxembourg and hopes for a positive outcome to its proposals for cultivation, which have been blocked for almost two years by France and others,” said spokesman Frederic Vincent as cited by AFP.
MON 810 is known by its trade name, YieldGuard. It was modified genetically in order to insert a bacteria into its DNA structure, allowing YieldGuard to be promoted as resistant to insect pests that damage harvests. However, according to many experts, it can be dangerous for plants and animals.
France is by far not the only country attempting to get rid of Monsanto’s maize. Five other EU countries – Germany, Greece, Austria, Luxembourg and Hungary – also imposed ban on MON 810 cultivation.
But in the US, the billion-dollar corporation's home, only the protesters in the streets seem to care. In March, thousands of people joined the Occupy Monsanto movement and marched through Washington, DC, Seattle, and Los Angeles.
Protesters accuse the biotech giant of anti-competitive actions like cleaning its reputation with multibillion-dollar cash injections and deliberately bankrupting independent farmers in order to force them into using their genetically-engineered seeds.
The Occupy Monsanto movement is planning to launch another round of protests during the harvesting season 2012.
Five million Brazilian farmers are locked in a lawsuit with US-based biotech giant Monsanto, suing for as much as 6.2 billion euros. They say that the genetic-engineering company has been collecting royalties on crops it unfairly claims as its own.
The farmers claim that Monsanto unfairly collects exorbitant profits every year worldwide on royalties from “renewal” seed harvests. “Renewal” crops are those that have been planted using seed from the previous year’s harvest. While the practice of renewal farming is an ancient one, Monsanto disagrees, demanding royalties from any crop generation produced from its genetically-engineered seed. Because the engineered seed is patented, Monsanto not only charges an initial royalty on the sale of the crop produced, but a continuing 2 per cent royalty on every subsequent crop, even if the farmer is using a later generation of seed.
"Monsanto gets paid when it sell the seeds. The law gives producers the right to multiply the seeds they buy and nowhere in the world is there a requirement to pay (again). Producers are in effect paying a private tax on production," Jane Berwanger, lawyer for the farmers told the Associated Press reports.
In the latest installment of the legal battle erupting in South America, the Brazilian court has ruled in favor of the Brazilian farmers, saying Monsanto owes them at least US$2 billion paid since 2004. Monsanto, however, has appealed the decision and the case is ongoing.
In essence, Monsanto argues that once a farmer buys their seed, they have to pay the global bio-tech giant a yearly fee in perpetuity – with no way out.
At stake is Brazil’s highly profitable and ever growing soybean production. Last year, Brazil was the world's second producer and exporter of soybean behind the United States, according to the AFP report. The crops can be used for anything from animal feed to bio fuel, and worldwide demand is growing.
Genetically engineered soy first appeared illegally in Brazil in the 1990’s, smuggled in from neighboring Argentina. The Brazilian farmers found the seed attractive despite the ban in place from the Brazilian authorities because Monsanto had specifically designed the seed to be resistant to its own immensely powerful and popular herbicide Roundup.
When used in tandem, the strong herbicide will kill the weeds while allowing the soy crops to grow unimpeded. After the ban was lifted, genetically modified seed flooded the Brazilian market, and now 85 per cent of the Brazilian soy crop is genetically-engineered. Soy has been extremely successful in Brazil, currently making up 26 per cent of the country’s farm exports last year and netting Brazil a total of $24.1 billion, according to AP. However, Brazil’s farmers were apparently unaware there would be a heavy price to pay.
To make a deal with Monsanto is to make a deal with a company that is one the most powerful and pervasive food giants in the world. It is the world’s number one seed developer, and its patented genes have been inserted into 95 per cent of all American soy, and 80 per cent of all American corn crops. Monsanto has repeatedly levied large damage suits against independent farmers that have unknowingly or unwittingly used their seed.
And Monsanto’s reach goes far beyond agriculture.
Monsanto is also the world’s largest manufacturer of synthetic bovine growth hormone, injected into cows in order to stimulate greater milk production. The widespread pressure by the company to use the chemical and the subsequent measures taken by Monsanto to suppress information regarding the potential health risks sparked uproar among American farmers.
When dairy producers that did not use Monsanto’s products began labeling their products as “Hormone Free” or “Organic”, Monsanto slapped them with a lawsuit as recently as 2008, claiming the labels amounted to negative advertising against hormone-produced milk.
Director of corporate communications for Monsanto, Phil Angell, summed up Monsanto’s take on the issue in a report by food author Michael Pollan for New York Times Magazine in 1998: "Monsanto should not have to vouch for the safety of biotech food. Our interest is in selling as much of it as possible. Assuring its safety is FDA's job."
Biotech giants Monsanto were awarded a victory by lawmakers in Washington this week after a congressional panel voted to let farmers plant genetically modified crops made by the agriculture company despite pending legal proceedings.
A committee made up of members of the US House of Representatives agreed on Tuesday this week to allow genetically modified crops manufactured by the Monsanto corporation and other biotech companies, including competitors Dupont Co., to continue to be used on American farmlands. The ruling comes despite a trove of legal challenges that have hindered full-fledged approval of some genetically modified organisms, or GMOs.
Although the USDA has previously authorized Monsanto-created biocrops to be planted, an array of legal appeals have left the major agriculture company combating with opponents as of late. Questions over the safety of the lab-made crops on human health and the environment, as well as opposition from small time farmers constantly being fought by Monsanto, has slowed the federal agency from fully approving some crops. Now after the latest vote, Monsanto and its competitors will be able to offer seeds even as the Justice Department determines the legitimacy of the appeals.
Nine major agricultural associations asking for Congress to let the biocrops be planted sent a letter to Washington this week, saying that opponents of the industry giants were purposely hindering the approval process.
“Opponents of agricultural biotechnology have repeatedly filed suits against USDA on procedural grounds in order to disrupt the regulatory process and undermine the science-based regulation of such products,” the letter reads. “These lawsuits have also created tremendous resource constraints for USDA and have resulted in significant delays in approval of new, innovative products that will help growers provide Americans with an abundant and economical food supply while remaining competitive in the world market.”
The groups behind the letter, which includes the American Soybean Association (ASA) among others, had urged Congress to support a provision in the Fiscal Year 2013 Appropriations bill that would let growers use biotech crops that have already been approved by USDA even if appeals are still being heard and further litigation is all but certain.
“The inclusion of Section 733 is a positive step to ensure that US farmers and our food chain are shielded from supply disruptions caused by litigation over procedural issues unrelated to sound science or the safety of biotech crops. This legislative solution ensures that national agricultural policy is not being decided by the court system while providing a level of certainty that is critical to ensure that our agricultural producers continue to lead the world,” they write.
Responding to the bill, long-time opponents of the biotech company The Center for Food Safety call the legislation a"Monsanto profit assurance provision."
Monsanto has garnered their fair share of opponents as of late, a result that many will argue comes from the company’s heated stance against small-time farmers. The corporation has threatened lesser farms with hundreds of lawsuits for using genetically modified crops patented by Monsanto that have been carried onto their farms by wind and other elements of nature. Recently, the corporation threatened to sue the entire state of Vermont because lawmakers there were considering a bill that would force manufacturers to label products that are created either partially or in full from a GMO.
Two studies have appeared in scientific journals in the past eight months, both funded by Monsanto, and both discrediting a Roundup herbicide-cancer link.
The context within which these new studies are appearing is the growing body of experimental research indicating that the active ingredient in Roundup, glyphosate, along with the surfactants and related "inactive" ingredients found within glyphosate-based formulations, cause genetic damage associated with cancer initiation, and at levels far below those used agricultural applications and associated with real-world exposures. (Baloney. - kdtroxel)
