"Roundup Ready" GMOs tied to MAJOR life and health risks

I've been "sitting" on this one. I first heard about it in January and several times in February. I've "just" wanted all my ducks in a row. But I'm out of time.

Happily, Judith McGeary, founder and Executive Director of the Farm and Ranch Freedom Alliance (FARFA), has given me permission to copy her news item. She speaks in rather understated terms. Go to the original documents to which she refers, and we're talking about a warning letter from a man who has served for 40 years "in the professional and military agencies that evaluate and prepare for natural and manmade biological threats, including germ warfare and disease outbreaks."

"Based on this experience," he says, "I believe the threat we are facing . . . is unique and of a high risk status. In layman’s terms, it should be treated as an emergency."

What is he talking about? A "micro-fungal-like organism" that is causing "infertility rates in dairy heifers of over 20%, and spontaneous abortions in cattle as high as 45%."

"In summary," he concludes,

because of the high titer of this new animal pathogen in Roundup Ready crops, and its association with plant and animal diseases that are reaching epidemic proportions, we request USDA’s participation in a multi-agency investigation, and an immediate moratorium on the deregulation of RR crops until the causal/predisposing relationship with glyphosate and/or RR plants can be ruled out as a threat to crop and animal production and human health.

Dr. Don Huber, Emeritus Professor, Purdue University, and APS Coordinator, USDA National Plant Disease Recovery System, sent this letter to Thomas Vilsack, United States Secretary of Agriculture, on January 17th. And what did Vilsack do with it?

He completely ignored it!

Here is Judith McGeary's summary:

Watch the video interview with Dr. Huber about the new pathogen that's threatening our food! And then tell President Obama to say "no" to GMO Alfalfa and Sugar Beets On January 17, 2011, Dr. Don Huber, an internationally-recognized plant pathologist and Professor Emeritus at Purdue University, sent a letter to USDA Secretary Tom Vilsack alerting  him to a serious problem facing U.S. agriculture. This letter warned Secretary Vilsack of a previously unknown pathogen that "should be treated as an emergency." Dr. Huber’s letter discussed the new pathogen in dire terms, saying that a top team of scientists had discovered a link between the new pathogen, the steady rise of plant diseases in Roundup Ready corn and soybean crops, and the high rates of infertility and spontaneous abortions of animal livestock consuming feed that had been treated with the weed killer Roundup. The letter urged Secretary Vilsack not to approve Roundup Ready alfalfa because of the high levels "of this new animal pathogen in Roundup Ready crops, and its association with plant and animal diseases that are reaching epidemic proportions," and to conduct research on the relationship between Roundup Ready crops, glyphosate (the active ingredient in Roundup), and this new pathogen. The USDA chose to ignore this warning and less than three weeks later approved two new GMO crops, including Monsanto’s Roundup Ready alfalfa, creating a threat to the primary forage feed for US livestock. The letter, although intended to be confidential, was leaked by a third party, after which Dr. Huber gave permission for FARFA and others to post it.  The now-public letter unleashed a storm of accusations and recriminations, including a quick response from Monsanto. Earlier this spring, FARFA worked with Food Democracy Now! on an interview with Dr. Huber to investigate these new findings and understand the latest science.  We were greatly alarmed by what we learned and appreciate Dr. Huber’s courage in coming forward to warn the government about this serious threat to the livelihoods of farmers, animal livestock, and our global food supply. Watch the full interview with Dr. Huber on Vimeo  (the interview is a large file, so if you have trouble viewing it, you can also view individual short segments on Food Democracy Now's website)   More Information:         Read Dr. Huber's second explanatory letter here          Read an in-depth interview with Dr. Huber by Acres USA It’s planting season now. If these new Roundup Ready alfalfa seeds go in the ground, it will be too late to stop them from making their way up the food chain -- putting America’s crops, livestock, and ultimately our families at risk. TAKE ACTION 1)  CALL THE WHITE HOUSE       Phone: (202) 456-1111       Fax: (202) 456-2461       Online: http://www.whitehouse.gov/contact/ MESSAGE: "I'm appalled that President Obama and Secretary Vilsack ignored Dr. Huber's warnings about the threat posed by a new pathogen linked to genetically modified crops and Roundup.  It was wrong to approve GMO alfalfa and sugar beets without more research.  I insist that President Obama place an immediate moratorium on the planting of these GMO crops." 2)  SIGN THE PETITION Together with Food Democracy Now!, we have drafted a letter to President Obama and Secretary Vilsack insisting that they suspend the sale and planting of Monstanto’s Roundup Ready Alfalfa seeds until independent third party scientific research can be conducted proving the safety of GMO crops.  Will you please sign on? You can view the video and sign the petition on Food Democracy Now's website  -- scroll to the bottom of the page for the petition.  (note: because of the software, you will be automatically signed up for Food Democracy Now's email alerts, but you can choose to unsubscribe if you prefer)

See an HTML version of Huber's original letter about halfway down the page here . . . along with several other supporting documents.

Oh. Lest someone charge me with being "head in the sand."

* Yes, there are stories that Huber's colleagues at Purdue have claimed his concerns are overblown. "The proof isn't in."

* Okay. Maybe it's not all in. But that's really what Huber said, isn't it? He said, "Let's get the research right before unleashing this stuff in the wild." Specifically:

[W]e request USDA’s participation in a multi-agency investigation, and an immediate moratorium on the deregulation of RR crops until the causal/predisposing relationship with glyphosate and/or RR plants can be ruled out as a threat to crop and animal production and human health.

It is urgent to examine whether the side-effects of glyphosate use may have facilitated the growth of this pathogen, or allowed it to cause greater harm to weakened plant and animal hosts. It is well-documented that glyphosate promotes soil pathogens and is already implicated with the increase of more than 40 plant diseases; it dismantles plant defenses by chelating vital nutrients; and it reduces the bioavailability of nutrients in feed, which in turn can cause animal disorders. To properly evaluate these factors, we request access to the relevant USDA data.

So why did Vilsack approve it? Why would our government keep marching forward despite the warning? Gotta keep Monsanto in profits? (See also this and this and this.) (???!!! USDA Allows Monsanto to Approve its Own Crops???!!!!)

* Or how's this for a more thoughtful perspective?

As if the federal government doesn't already have more than enough to do . . .

I've been listening to lectures from past Acres USA conferences (2007 and 2008) and have heard quite a bit about NAIS (National Animal Identification System--a federal program "intended to identify animals and track them as they come into contact with, or commingle with, animals other than herdmates from their premises of origin" but that actually places unbelievable financial and paperwork burdens on even backyard keepers of a few chickens, ducks, or goats (not to mention larger animals like horses, donkeys, cows or pigs).

According to the NAIS regulations, every property on which any such animals are kept is supposed to be registered with the federal government, and, then, unless the owner of such animals also owns and/or operates the meat or egg processing plant, every individual animal is also supposed to receive a unique, 15-character animal identification number which is to be attached directly to the animal itself. And--just as FedEx and UPS now track and report the movements of every item throughout their distribution systems, so the movements of every animal are supposed to be tracked and reported to the federal government.

NAIS was supposed to be "voluntary" (ha ha!), but with federal muscle behind it, Wisconsin, the first state to implement the regulations, made it absolutely mandatory. --Interestingly, the registration system, mandated by law, is "not maintained by state government, but instead relies upon the Wisconsin Livestock Identification Consortium (WLIC) to maintain the database of Premises ID registrants. This is currently continuing with the RFID tagging database as well.[19] The WLIC is a private interest group made up of Big Agribusiness, including Cargill, Genetics/Biotech Corporations, like ABS Global, and RFID tagging companies such as Digital Angel[20]. . . . There are also in fact only 6 RFID tags that are approved by WLIC/NAIS at this time: 2 manufactured by Allflex, 2 by Digital Angel, one by Y-Tex and 1 by Global Animal Management. All four are WLIC members." (Wikipedia article on the National Animal Identification System.

Now we are told that, as of February 2010, NAIS was being abandoned in order to

re-focus its efforts on a "new framework" for animal traceability. The Secretary stated the new framework would apply only to animals that cross state lines and would encourage the use of low-tech methods of identification.

The USDA's announcement sparked widely divergent reactions. Groups representing independent farmers and local consumers applauded the USDA's decision. But the proponents of NAIS, namely the Big Ag and Big Tech groups, expressed disappointment and issued statements about the horrible things that could supposedly happen without a centralized ID system. These pro-NAIS entities quickly re-grouped and announced plans to adopt "model regulations" (i.e. NAIS-type regulations) at the State level.

But the issue is also still far from over even at the federal level. Despite USDA's announcement, Big Ag and Big Tech are pushing for a more expansive federal program. And key bureaucrats who developed NAIS continue to work within the agency, and they do not seem to have changed their views despite the announcements from the top.

--Farm-to-Consumer Legal Defense Fund (F2CLDF)

Oh! But we haven't begun to discover how far the federal government is wanting to extend its grip into issues for which one would think the interstate commerce clause should limit its reach.

Now comes Senate Bill 510, due for a vote any day now. Possibly even today.

And what does SB510 have to say? Well, here's a rather calm review of some of its more egregious features.

• It will "enable FDA potentially to regulate all farms marketing food products direct to consumers even if the farms engage only in intrastate commerce." --In other words, the local farmers who sell in your local farmer's market: They will be subject to federal oversight. Your neighbor who owns a few chickens and sells or gives you eggs: Such behavior will be subject to federal (FDA) oversight.
  
  If you think it’s a good idea to give FDA more power,
  
  • Here are the agency’s views on your freedom to obtain the foods of your choice; these are direct quotations from the agency’s response to a lawsuit the Farm-to-Consumer Legal Defense Fund (F2CLDF) filed earlier this year challenging the interstate ban on raw milk for human consumption:
    
    • "There is no absolute right to consume or feed children any particular food." [A--p. 25]
       
    • "There is no 'deeply rooted' historical tradition of unfettered access to foods of all kinds." [A--p. 26]
       
    • "Plaintiffs' assertion of a 'fundamental right to their own bodily and physical health, which includes what foods they do and do not choose to consume for themselves and their families' is similarly unavailing because plaintiffs do not have a fundamental right to obtain any food they wish." [A--p. 26]
       
    • "There is no fundamental right to freedom of contract." [A--p. 27]
      
     
  • For those who think it is a good idea to give the FDA more power, here are some of the products FDA has allowed in the marketplace:
    
    • MSG (monosodium glutamate),
       
    • high fructose corn syrup (HFCS),
       
    • aspartame,
       
    • genetically-modified organisms (GMOs),
       
    • Avandia (prescribed for type 2 diabetes) and
       
    • Vioxx (arthritis pain medication).
    If none of these items alarms you, I guess I have not been doing my job! There is strong evidence of major human health problems related to each and every one of these substances. But the FDA has done nothing to protect us.
    
    Meanwhile, as reported here a few days ago, the FDA is standing in the way of full disclosure of health benefits of good foods like tart cherries and walnuts, claiming that any producer or distributor of such products who associates any health benefits to these items--even if the benefits are well-documented in peer-reviewed scientific papers--the producer/distributor is engaged in the illegal sale of an unapproved drug until it has submitted its specific cherries or walnuts (or whatever) to a costly FDA approval process. . . .
    
    And we are interested in permitting them more power?

Linn Cohen-Cole wrote a powerful post on an earlier (and less-egregious-than-it-is-now) version of the same bill:

Wisdom says stop a bill that is broad as everything yet more vague even than it is broad.

Wisdom says stop a bill that comes with massive penalties but allows no judicial review.

Wisdom says stop a bill with everything unspecified and actually waits til next year for an unspecified “Administrator” to decide what’s what.

Where we come from, that’s called a blank check. Who writes laws like that? ”Here, do what you want about whatever you want and here’s some deadly punishments to make it stick.”

Wisdom says know who wrote that bill and be forewarned.

Wisdom says wake up.

Here’s the bill. Let’s use our imaginations and extrapolate from the little bit it reveals and from the reality we know.

SEC. 206. FOOD PRODUCTION FACILITIES.

(a) Authorities- In carrying out the duties of the Administrator and the purposes of this Act, the Administrator shall have the authority, with respectto food production facilities, to–

(1) visit and inspect food production facilities in the United Statesand in foreign countries to determine if they are operating in compliance with the requirements of the food safety law;

(2) review food safety records as required to be kept by the Administrator under section 210 and for other food safety purposes;

(3) set good practice standards to protect the public and animal health and promote food safety;

(4) conduct monitoring and surveillance of animals, plants, products, or the environment, as appropriate;

(5) collect and maintain information relevant to public health andfarm practices.

(b) Inspection of Records- A food production facility shall permit the Administrator upon presentation of appropriate credentials and at reasonable times and in a reasonable manner, to have access to and ability to copy all records maintained by or on behalf of such food production establishment in any format (including paper or electronic) and at any location, that are necessary to assist the Administrator–

(1) to determine whether the food is contaminated, adulterated, or otherwise not in compliance with the food safety law; or

(2) to track the food in commerce.

(c) Regulations- Not later than 1 year after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Administrator, in consultation with the Secretary of Agriculture and representatives of State departments of agriculture, shall promulgate regulations to establish science-based minimum standards for the safe production of food by food production facilities. Such regulations shall–

(1) consider all relevant hazards, including those occurring naturally,and those that may be unintentionally or intentionally introduced;

(2) require each food production facility to have a written food safety plan that describes the likely hazards and preventive controls implemented to address those hazards;

(3) include with respect to growing, harvesting, sorting, and storage operations, minimum standards related to fertilizer use, nutrients, hygiene, packaging, temperature controls, animal encroachment . . . and water;

Ah, such a little paragraph, and so much evil packed in it. Notice they mention harvesting, sorting and storage operations? Notice they never mention seeds? But they are precisely what those words cover.

Come again? What's that? Why this concern about seeds?

Because, Cohen-Cole says, that is exactly what these kinds of regulations are always about: maximizing profits for Big Ag (the Monsantos and Cargills of the world). [Interesting: That is what the F2CLDF also says: "[The] FDA’s true clients are not the American people but rather the pharmaceutical and biotechnology industries."

But, but . . . wait a second! What do seeds have to do with Big Ag? And why this interest in seeds?

• Watch where Monsanto is and has been going for the last 15 to 20 years, say the observers. Monsanto has been aiming for a monopoly on seed production worldwide. And they are getting closer than most of us would care to know!

Cohen-Cole writes:

When you know that Monsanto with the help of the US government plundered ancient and rare seed banks in Iraq that held seeds with a genetic heritage (a biohistory belonging to all of us) going back 1000s of years and then made it a crime for farmers there to collect or use their own normal and non-patented seeds off their own land, you see how extreme the intent to control is. . . .

The Iraqis are now utterly at the mercy of Monsanto and the US for survival itself and will have to pay whatever prices are set for food. They can no longer just grow their own and be free people. So, no matter what form of government they may ever have, as long as this is true, they are now enslaved because the control over them is that extreme. Kissinger was right – control food and you control people. . . .

In Afghanistan, people are buying and planting beans from America which at the end of the season have nothing whatever inside, the pods are empty. In Ecuador, the potatoes there do not develop eyes so can’t be planted next season to grow potatoes.

Biotech’s claim to care about feeding starving multitudes is belied by its blocking human access to normal seeds and its terminator technology (empty beans). Monopoly is monopoly is monopoly. And at this level, and when it comes to seeds which are life itself, monopoly terminates democracy as well as beans.

Please, read The World According to Monsanto by Marie-Monique Robin I told you about a few days ago.

"Watch how they will be able to easily criminalize seed banking and all holding of seeds," Cohen-Cole writes.

First, to follow how this will be done, you must understand that:

1. there is a small list inside the FDA called “sources of seed contamination” and

2. the FDA has now defined “seed” as food,

3. so seeds can now be controlled through “food safety.” . . .

Farmers, gardeners, seed saving exchanges, seed companies, scientific seed projects, and seed banks, all require sorting. All are working overtime to protect biodiversity that is rapidly disappearing specifically because of genetic engineering. As Monsanto began reducing access to seeds, people around the world have worked hard to compensate.

But now the effort is to take over the whole game, going after even these small sources of biodiversity – by simply defining seeds as food and . . . all farmers’ affordable mechanisms for harvesting (collecting), sorting (seed cleaning) and storing (seed banking or saving) as too dirty to be safe for food.

Set the standard for “food safety” and certification high enough that no one can afford it and punish anyone who tries to save seed in ways that have worked fine for thousands of years, with a million dollar a day fine and/or ten years in prison, and presto, you have just criminalized seed banking.

The penalties are tremendous, the better to protect us from nothing dangerous whatsoever, but to make monopoly over seed absolutely absolute. One is left with control over farmers, an end to seed exchanges, an end to organic seed companies, an end to university programs developing nice normal hybrids, and an end to democracy – reducing us to abject dependence on corporations for food and gratitude even for genetically engineered food and at any price. . . .

There are three other items of the list which surely will be controlled as well. In toto, that little list of six items (agricultural water, manure, harvesting, transporting and seed cleaning equipment, and seed storage facilities) contains the pieces to deconstruct farming itself, especially organic farming.

Oh, there is more, much more! Please take a look at the Farm-to-Consumer Legal Defense Fund page about S510. As I said above, it is non-alarmist. But it ought to cause your hair to stand on end.

The article was written in September and concludes,

S510 is not about protecting the public health but rather about increasing federal control over food and transferring market share from the local food system to the industrial food system. The bill grants broad rulemaking power to FDA, a grant not merited by the agency’s track record. Its passage will cripple local food over time.

There have been reports in the media that S510 is dead. Don’t believe them. The bill could still be brought to the Senate floor before Congress’ pre-election break and it could also be brought up for a vote during a lameduck session after the elections.

Guess what? Cloture was passed yesterday. It is being voted on during the lameduck session. It is time to take action.

For more on the subject, see S510 Talking Points by Pete Kennedy, Esq.

And for a relatively easy method of figuring out how to communicate with your senators, go to the F2CLDF's Action Page.

Follow the money, Part 2

Dr. Linda Chalker-Scott wanted to demonstrate that university researchers are not "in the pocket of Big Ag." And to that end, therefore, she was pleased to post a brief paragraph about an article in the Seattle Times about an Organic farming study at - gasp! - a research university.

I have attempted to develop the case that even without direct manipulation of results; even while leaving research scientists to come to their own, independent conclusions, "Thems that's got the money makes the rules." And in the world of agriculture, those who have the money are companies like Monsanto. And they are able to fund research projects that they view as favorable to their cause, and they are able to defund projects that they view as unfavorable. Meanwhile, "Little Ag" as we might call most of the biodynamic/pro-organic/anti-GMO crowd, lacks the funds and, more importantly, any similar financial incentives to sponsor similarly complex and large-scale research that may prove favorable to its cause.

In this post, however, I want to push one step further along the lines of how, it appears, companies like Monsanto really are controlling a lot of the research that impacts their bottom lines and our (consumers') health . . . for good or ill.

Let me begin with a broad-based documentary book: The World According to Monsanto by Marie-Monique Robin, an award-winning French journalist and filmmaker.

It is filled with testimonies of people here in the United States and around the world whose lives, they claim, have been upended due to the products and practices of Monsanto.

When I say "upended," I am referring to businesses destroyed, livelihoods wiped out, interminable and extortionate lawsuits pursued against those who, I imagine most of my readers would agree, should have never been sued in the first place. It includes detailed stories of children and adults whose lives have been threatened--indeed, whose bodies have been injured--by the promotion of soy as a primary food (at the expense of a much more diverse diet) . . . and by the use of Monsanto's prize herbicide, Roundup^®.

Robin develops these stories in detail.

For example, she describes the situation in Argentina where, apparently, soy is consumed at far higher rates than it is here in the United States. She quotes an Argentine doctor who says,

Several colleagues in the region and I have observed a very significant increase in reproductive anomalies such as miscarriages and premature fetal death; malfunctions of the thyroid, the respiratory system--such as pulmonary edemas--the kidneys, and the endocrine system; liver and skin diseases; and severe eye problems. . . . We have observed in the region a significant number of cases of cryptorchism and hypospadias in boys, and hormonal malfunctions in girls, some of whom have their periods as young as three.

Robin explains what cryptorchism and hypospadias are: "Cryptorchism is a birth defect characterized by undescended testicles; hypospadias is a malformation of the urethra [in which] it does not reach the tip of the penis." (The World According to Monsanto, p. 266)

After reading this and other similar stories, I expect you will take Dr. Mercola's warnings about eating soy even more seriously.

Back to Robin.

She quotes a French researcher who found that Roundup^®, even at concentrations significantly less than those used in farming (the scientist referenced a concentration of 0.05%, whereas concentrations used in farming are normally 1 to 2%) . . . --Even at concentrations significantly less than those used in farming, Roundup^® kills human embryonic cells. "And," the scientist continued,

When you use an even weaker concentration--by diluting the product bought in a store 10,000 or even 100,000 times--you find it no longer kills cells but blocks the production of sex hormones, which is also very serious, because of those hormones enable the fetus to develop its bones and form its future reproductive system. It can therefore be concluded that Roundup is also an endocrine disruptor.

You would think, with such powerful testimonies against it, Monsanto might have difficulty promoting its wares. It does not. In fact, if anything, it seems to enjoy the aid of governments around the world. Robin provides enough details, in general, to explain that oddity. I need to let you get a-hold of your own copy and read it.

But the following item may help explain the phenomenon.

• Many--some would say most--of the primary American government oversight agencies that are supposed to be ensuring Monsanto "plays fair" are, themselves, overseen by . . . former and/or future Monsanto employees! Possible conflicts of interest?
  
  • Perhaps most shocking, for me, was to see that Clarence Thomas, the Supreme Court judge who wrote the opinion that granted Monsanto and other such companies full patent rights over genetically modified seeds. --Not that Thomas' role in the case was more egregious than many other connections between Monsanto and the government; it was "just" that I had no idea that a person of Thomas' stature would have permitted himself to play a role like that in which potential conflicts-of-interest would be so visible.
    
    Then again,
     
  • Michael R. Taylor was an assistant to the Food and Drug Administration commissioner before he left to work for a law firm that was seeking to gain FDA approval of Monsanto’s artificial growth hormone. Taylor then became deputy commissioner of the FDA from 1991 to 1994. Taylor was later re-appointed to the FDA in August 2009 by President Obama.
     
  • Dr. Michael A. Friedman was a deputy commissioner of the FDA before he was hired as a senior vice president of Monsanto.
     
  • Linda J. Fisher was an assistant administrator at the United States Environmental Protection Agency‎ (EPA) before she was a vice president at Monsanto from 1995 - 2000. In 2001, Fisher became the deputy administrator of the EPA. --Any potential conflicts of interest, there, you think?
     
  • Michael (Mickey) Kantor is a former United States Trade Representative, the Secretary of Commerce for the United States, and member of the board of directors of Monsanto Corporation. --No conflicts of interest?
     
  • Michael Taylor, a Monsanto attorney, is, I am given to understand, largely responsible for writing the federal "regulations" for genetically modified foods! --And can you guess what company owns patents on the genetic codes of 90 percent of all transgenic crops? It wouldn't be Monsanto, by any chance? (Oh, yes, it would!)
     
  • And on and on these lists go.
  For just a few references on this subject (that document these matters far better than I have), see Lies and Deception: How the FDA Does Not Protect Your Best Interests, Why are Monsanto Insiders Now Appointed to Protect Your Food Safety?, and the Public officials formerly employed by Monsanto section of the Wikipedia article about Monsanto . . . just for starters.

Robin and others have documented the shenanigans Monsanto engages in to discredit and destroy any scientists who dare to speak out against GMOs. I urge you to read the story of Ignacio Chapela and David Quist on pp. 246-253 in Robin's book. It is quite chilling.

If you are reluctant to purchase the book or borrow it from the library, then I urge you simply to click through to this article by Jeffrey Smith and published and commented upon by Dr. Mercola. It summarizes the stories of researchers Arpad Pusztai, Irina Ermakova, Andrés Carrasco, Judy Carman, Terje Traavik, Allison Snow, Marc Lappé and Britt Bailey, Bela Darvas and many more.

You can look these people up elsewhere on the web. Their stories, happily, are known (to those who know to look them up). Sadly, most of us are unaware of how our information is being manipulated.

For more on Monsanto, I encourage you to read Dr. Mercola's Evil Monsanto Finally Reaping Its Just Desserts.

--If you have read this far, I thank you. But I want to be fair.

There is--or, at least, there appears to be--another side to the story.

Jeffrey Smith is vilified as being a nutcase whose views are unworthy of your consideration. Are his opponents' criticisms worthy of consideration? {Note, for example, that they take on Irina Ermakova's claims about the dangers of GMO. But then, again, see what Ermakova has to say about her own work.) Who should you believe?

For more on GMOs and Monsanto, I encourage you to go to Jeffrey Smith's website, Seeds of Deception. But check out, too, Monsanto's website to get their take. And The GMO Crop (mis)Information Page.

Monsanto sounds very reasonable on its own website. "If you have questions, please contact us and we will do our best to respond in a timely manner," they say.

Maybe I will write. . . .

Think the BP oil spill is a major environmental disaster? Perhaps it's time for us to look at our food!

What with three children and several grandchildren who exhibit major reactions to various foods (but particularly wheat); and what with my rheumatoid arthritis diagnosed only just over a year ago--and rather quickly identified as strongly influenced by the ingestion of wheat (not to mention other foods); what with the discovery over this past year of just how difficult it is, in the modern world of processed foods, to acquire almost any food that has not been tainted or tampered with in some manner . . . : I have become more and more aware, especially this past year, of issues related to food and food production.

And with all of these thoughts fairly near the top of my mind, perhaps you can understand my fury at reading this story about Monsanto.

Be prepared to have your blood boil . . . and find your food buying habits slowly alter (as ours have) as you realize there really is something wrong about our modern food production system. . . .

HR875--How freedoms are lost in the United States

Fascinating and distressing all at the same time.

Check out House Resolution 875 currently working its way through the U.S. House of Representatives.

Representative Rosa DeLauro of Connecticut introduced the legislation. We ought not to ignore the fact that she is wife of Stan Greenberg, a lobbyist and one of Monsanto Corporation's chief political strategists.

First, and most onerous: HR875 requires all food producers to pre-register with the federal government, even if the food is produced for local (in-state) consumption (and not for interstate commerce . . . which is the sole function permitted to the federal government by the constitution). [See the definition of "Food Establishment" (subsection (13) and the definitions of the five different categories of "Food Establishment" in Sec. 3 (subsections (5) through (9) titled "Category __ Food Establishment"; also, subsections (14) and (19) in the same Section 3. Finally, then, Sec. 202(a) and (b), and, most tellingly, section 406: "In any action to enforce the requirements of the food safety law, the connection with interstate commerce required for jurisdiction shall be presumed to exist." --Emphasis added--JAH --In other words, all states' rights are conveniently swept away.

Does this matter? I hope to return to this in a subsequent post having to do with Raw Milk.]

But ignore the states' rights issue. Notice what this means to the small farmer, the family farm, and the family gardener.

You would think we would all be left off the hook by subsection (19), wouldn't you? "The term ‘process’ or ‘processing’ means the commercial slaughter, packing, preparation, or manufacture of food." --That has nothing to do with private, small-scale farms or personal gardens that produce food for our own consumption.

Or does it?

Check out the Supreme Court case of Wickard v Filburn (1942). According to Wikipedia,

In July 1940, pursuant to the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938, Filburn's 1941 allotment was established at 11.1 acres (45,000 m2) and a normal yield of 20.1 bushels of wheat per acre. Filburn was given notice of the allotment in July 1940 before the Fall planting of his 1941 crop of wheat, and again in July 1941, before it was harvested. Despite these notices Filburn planted 23 acres (93,000 m2) and harvested 239 bushels from his 11.9 acres (48,000 m2) of excess area.

Filburn was hauled into court for violation of the Agricultural Adjustment Act, even though Filburn produced the "excess" corn solely for home consumption; it was not part of the federal government's jurisdiction.

Oh, really? said the Supreme Court. And they rejected his argument,

reasoning that if Filburn had not used home-grown wheat he would have had to buy wheat on the open market. This effect on interstate commerce, the Court reasoned, may not be substantial from the actions of Filburn alone but through the cumulative actions of thousands of other farmers just like Filburn its effect would certainly become substantial. Therefore Congress could regulate wholly intrastate, non-commercial activity if such activity, viewed in the aggregate, would have a substantial effect on interstate commerce, even if the individual effects are trivial.

Oh. And you'd think this 60-some year-old decision might be overturned, wouldn't you?

Not likely. Not when "[t]he Supreme Court majority that decided the 2005 case Gonzales v. Raich relied heavily on Filburn in upholding the power of the federal government to prosecute individuals who grow their own medicinal marijuana pursuant to state law."

Moreover, consider that if you give some food away or try to sell a small quantity in a local farmer's market (as many small-scale and organic farmers do today): you (and they) may very readily fall afoul of this law.

And if you're not sure?

Check out Section 405 ("Civil and Criminal Penalties") . . . which notes, in subsection (a)(1)(A), that "Any person that commits an act that violates the food safety law (including a regulation promulgated or order issued under the food safety law) may be assessed a civil penalty by the Administrator of not more than $1,000,000 for each such act." --Oh. But notice how they define "each such act." Go on to subsection (a)(1)(B): "Each act described in subparagraph (A) and each day during which that act continues shall be considered a separate offense." [Emphasis added--JAH]

So notice what that means! "Guilty until proven innocent." --You'd better stop doing whatever-it-is you're doing or you'll face the possibility of a multi-million-dollar fine . . . unless and until you can get this new agency off of your back.

Ah! And then notice how these kinds of fines can be used! --Like the confiscation laws that police departments are using to enrich themselves at the expense of innocent people who are illegitimately charged with drugs infractions, take a look at Section 405(e): The Administrator of this leviathan "may use the funds in the account, without further appropriation or fiscal year limitation . . . to carry out enforcement activities under the food safety law."

Oh. And guess who will be given the right to certify any foreign "food establishment" as legally permitted to grow or process whatever food it is that they would like to grow and/or process and sell into the United States? Check out Section 208(k)! "Entities eligible for accreditation as a certifying agent . . . may include . . . a foreign or domestic cooperative that aggregates the products of growers or processors for importation." Is this an invitation to conflicts-of-interest, or what?

Oh, but the proposed law has a response to this concern, doesn't it? The very next section, 208(l) is very explicit: "To be eligible for accreditation . . . , a certifying agent shall--

(A) not be owned, managed, or controlled by any person that owns or operates an establishment whose products are to be certified by such agent;

(B) have procedures to ensure against the use, in carrying out audits of food establishments under this section, of any officer or employee of such agent that has a financial conflict of interest regarding an establishment whose products are to be certified by such agent; and

(C) annually make available to the Secretary, disclosures of the extent to which such agent, and the officers and employees of such agent, have maintained compliance with subparagraphs (A) and (B) relating to financial conflicts of interest.

Sounds pretty airtight, doesn't it?

Except, . . . even I, a non-lawyer, (but a business owner) know that section (B) includes a huge hole in it. My company has a number of employees; it also has a large number of independent contractors. They do what we want and need them to do in our behalf. We pay them for their services. They "just" don't happen to meet the legal requirements of being full-blown employees.

Interesting that nothing is said about such contract labor in behalf of an agent with a financial conflict of interest.

Oh. And the law is very explicit about this being a financial conflict of interest. How about other forms of conflict-of-interest?

And one last section that has small farmers and organic food advocates up in arms: the entire set of regulations, the law says, is intended "to establish science-based minimum standards for the safe production of food" (see Section 206(c)). "Science-based." Get that?

Pay attention, now!

That means this new agency, "Not later than 1 year after the date of the enactment of this Act . . . shall promulgate regulations." And "Such regulations shall . . .

(2) require each food production facility to have a written food safety plan that describes the likely hazards and preventive controls implemented to address those hazards;
(3) include, with respect to growing, harvesting, sorting, and storage operations, minimum standards related to fertilizer use, nutrients, hygiene, packaging, temperature controls, animal encroachment, and water;
(4) include, with respect to animals raised for food, minimum standards related to the animal’s health, feed, and environment which bear on the safety of food for human consumption . . .

. . . And so forth.

Again, imagine being a small farmer and having to produce a "written food safety plan." --A "mere" few hundred dollars several years from now when some entrepreneurial lawyer creates a set of standardized electronic documents. But in the meantime?

And when it comes to "science," who knows better than a great big company like Monsanto (the world's largest producer and marketer of genetically engineered seed, bovine growth hormone, and that wonderful sugar substitute known as aspartame) [please understand that I was just speaking with huge tongue in cheek], right? Talk about "science"! They have it in spades.

But, then, what happens when the government--under the encouragement of a Monsanto--determines that something is "scientific" but simply ignores--because Monsanto itself won't provide such negative data--that speaks to the other side? For example,

MON863 [a Monsanto product] is a variety of maize genetically engineered to be resistant to corn rootworm and intended for human consumption. The MON863 grain is approved for human consumption in Japan, Mexico, Canada, South Korea, Taiwan, the United States and the European Union.

Both Monsanto experts, and independent toxicology experts attached to research institutions and food safety authorities internationally did not indicate statistically significant adverse effects. The European Food Safety Authority has found that "the placing on the market of MON863 is unlikely to have an adverse effect on human and animal health or the environment in the context of its proposed use."

However, a statistical analysis conducted on results of a Monsanto 90-day feeding study by Gilles-Eric Seralini, Dominique Cellier, and Joel Spiroux de Vendomois found it increased triglycerides in female rats by 20-40%, caused increased weight gain in female rats of 3.7%, a decrease in male rat weight of 3.3%, and increased certain indicators associated with liver and kidney toxicity.

Or consider Monsanto's Bovine somatotropin, abbreviated as rBST and commonly known as rBGH, a synthetic hormone injected into cows to increase milk production.

IGF-1 is a hormone stimulated by rBGH in the cow's blood stream, which is directly responsible for the increase in milk production. IGF-1 is a natural hormone found in the milk of both humans and cows causing the quick growth of infants. Though this hormone is naturally found in mothers[' milk] to be fed to their infants, it produces adverse effects in non-infants. IGF-1 behaves as a [breast, prostate, lung and colon] cancer accelerator in adults and non-infants. . . .

However, a large Monsanto-sponsored survey of milk showed no significant difference in rBST levels in milk labeled as "rBST-Free" or "Organic" vs milk not labeled as such.

According to the New York Times Monsanto's brand of rBST, Posilac, has . . . ([as of] March 2008) been the focus for a pro-rBST advocacy group called AFACT, made up of large dairy business conglomerates and closely affiliated with Monsanto itself. This group, whose acronym stands for American Farmers for the Advancement and Conservation of Technology, has engaged in large-scale lobbying efforts at the state level to prevent milk which is rBST-free from being labeled as such.

As milk labeled as hormone-free has proved enormously popular with consumers, the primary justification by Afact for their efforts has been that rBST is approved by the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and that the popularity of milk sold without it is damaging what they claim to be the right of dairy producers to use a technology that maximizes their profits.

Monsanto claims that labeling of hormone-free milk takes advantage of consumers by allowing higher prices for the milk by suggesting that it is "better" or "safer" than BST milk, when in fact, there is no difference. Monsanto is requesting that companies that advertise their milk as "rBST-free" be required to add the FDA label claiming that rBST has been found safe for human consumption and no differences exist between hormone and hormone-free milk.

Thus far, a large-scale negative consumer response to Afact's legislative and regulatory efforts has kept state regulators from pushing through strictures that would ban hormone-free milk labels, though several politicians have tried, including Pennsylvania's agriculture secretary Dennis Wolff, who tried to ban rBST-free milk labeling on the grounds that "consumers are confused".

Hey! If it's proven "scientifically" that hormone-laced milk is "best"--do you have any grounds to object? . . .

Sorry! Out of luck!

******
So what can you do about this monstrous bill?

Contact your US Representative and Senators and ask your representative to vote "NO" on HR875 and your senators to vote "NO" on SB425the Senate version of very similar legislation.

You can help yourself do that by going to Representatives on the Web and Senators on the Web, respectively.

Or contact your Representative via https:/writerep.house.gov/writerep/welcome.shtml and your Senators at http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm?State=WI

If you happen to see that one of your Representatives or Senators is a co-sponsor of either of these bills, you might want to write and requesst that they remove themselves as a co-sponsor to the bill and want them to vote NO on it too!

Further coverage:

The 2009 Food 'Safety' Bills Harmonize Agribusiness Practices in Service of Corporate Global Governance

and

A Solemn Walk Through HR 875

. . . just to get you going.