Genetically-Modified Corn Coming To A Farmers' Market Near You

A few items on genetically-modified corn:

In the US, two-thirds of the corn we grow is genetically modified. Some countries, however, have banned the import or use of GM seeds of any kind. Hungary is one of them. This article tells of the Hungarian government ploughing under GM corn that had found its way within its borders.

And this article indicates that GM corn is losing its pest resistance in the US. Crops are losing their battle to the beetle that they were supposed to poison.

Most disturbing is the news that Monsanto is marketing GM sweet corn seed this fall. Sweet corn is the kind that humans eat, as opposed to the other sorts of corn that are eaten by animals or turned into ethanol, corn syrup, food additives, etc.

What this means is that you may find GM corn at your favorite farmers' market next year. Needless to say, you will also continue to find more and more GM corn products in your supermarket.

Genetically-Modified Lawns

Coming to a lawn near you: Scotts Roundup-Ready Kentucky Bluegrass, courtesy of Monsanto.

Do we really want to see our neighbors growing genetically-modified plants, and dousing them with Roundup?

Some background: Roundup is an herbicide (plant-killer) manufactured by Monsanto.

Historically, herbicides been used on small, concentrated areas of weeds on farms, in gardens, and in yards, and for clearing out larger areas that might be overgrown with weeds. They have also been used in wars for destroying forests and other natural features, sometimes with little concern for other environmental effects.

In recent decades, Monsanto has genetically engineered varieties of plants that are immune to Roundup. So, for instance, you can grow a field of Monsanto canola and spray the WHOLE THING with Roundup, not just the weeds. This is much quicker than mechanical weeding, or than selective use of herbicides, and of course it is much more profitable for Monsanto.

The news now is that you can now have a genetically-modified, Roundup-resistant lawn. You can soak the whole thing in herbicide, kill all the weeds, and it will be perfect and weed-free.

Great! What's the problem?

First of all, many scientists say that GMO plants are dangerous to humans, animals, and the environment. Jeffrey Smith's excellent website gives an overview of the issues.

Second of all, the approval process for the GMO grass was, well, not existent. The USDA claimed that it did not have the authority to regulate the grass. The approval process for GMO foods has been inadequate, too, but at least there has been an effort to preserve appearances.

Third of all, regardless of the above, we are now going to see our neighborhoods sprayed with way more Roundup than ever before. And even though Roundup is approved for use in the US, there is a lot of evidence that it is toxic (and here)—enough that it is banned in many other countries.

Millions Against Monsanto: How You Can Make A Difference

Monsanto is the most noxious corporation on the earth. I've been saying this for a while. Now the Organic Consumers Association has put together a brilliant, well-organized campaign to do something about it: Millions Against Monsanto.

This isn't an issue of Democrat vs. Republican, or liberal vs. conservative, or anything like that. It's human vs. corporation. Or even, the survival of our species vs. the hubris and greed of one generation.

For some background oh Monsanto, check out the Millions Against Monsanto page. I can also recommend a few documentaries: Food, Inc., The World According to Monsanto, and The Future of Food. And lots of books. And the web page of a brave man, Percy Schmeiser.

Millions Against Monsanto is starting by lobbying to require labeling of genetically-modified food. Monsanto has fought labeling so successfully that not only is labeling not required, but it is in fact against federal law for local jurisdictions to pass laws requiring labeling!

If GM foods are safe, as Monsanto claims, then why oppose labeling?

And if the FDA is indeed a government watchdog working in the interests of the people, then why are they restricting our access to information?

You may be reading this and wondering if it affects you, because you don't know whether or not you consume genetically modified foods. That's exactly the point. The truth is that if you ever eat corn, sugar, soy, canola, potatoes, or tomatoes, it does affect you, because in the US, these may be genetically modified. And if nothing changes, the list will soon expand to include wheat, alfalfa, and salmon (!). No labeling required in the US.

To put this in perspective, at least 15 countries do require labeling, including Russia. Is Russia really ahead of the US on consumer safety? In this case, yes.

Believe it or not, this is just the start of the problems with Monsanto. Read here about PCBs, Agent Orange, intimidating small farmers, taking ownership of public water resources, and so on.

I urge everyone to join the campaign, join the Facebook page, and join your local chapter. The lines of battle have been drawn, and it's time for us to defend ourselves against Monsanto's willful recklessness.

(This post is part of Real Food Wednesday.)

Factory Food In The News

Nationwide study finds U.S. meat and poultry is widely contaminated: Multi-drug-resistant Staph found in nearly 1 in 4 samples, review shows. According to this article from a non-profit biomedical research institute, when a survey was done of supermarket meat from five cities,

Nearly half of the meat and poultry samples — 47 percent — were contaminated with S. aureus, and more than half of those bacteria — 52 percent — were resistant to at least three classes of antibiotics, according to the study published today in the journal Clinical Infectious Diseases.

So we should do something about this, right? Why don't we go inside factory farms and meat processing facilities, and shed some light on the situation? Send investigative journalists in to document things?

Unfortunately, the factory food industry is one step ahead of us. If a new Minnesota bill becomes law, anyone caught going undercover to document animal abuses at a factory farm could be sentenced to 5 years in jail.

[A]nyone who produces a recording of an image or sound occuring at an animal facility—or anyone caught possessing or distributing such content—could be charged with a gross misdemeanor. Presumably, that would include anyone who shared a video on YouTube.

So no longer would we be able to see such inspiring videos as these.

Similar laws have already passed in other states. And whose name do you think came up in the middle of all of this? You can probably guess (from Grist):

…Monsanto has more facilities in Iowa than in any other state in the country, with more than 25 offices. The company is heavily invested in the bill's outcome because "crop operations" are also covered, which would apply to Monsanto's seed houses, pesticide manufacturing plants and research facilities throughout Iowa. The biotech and crop chemical giant wouldn't want any undercover videos produced on its clock, apparently. 

That's a bit ironic, however, given the fact that Monsanto investigators are notorious for trespassing on farmers' property and going to extreme measures to produce evidence of seed patent infringement, including posing as land mappers or even joining a local Alcohol [sic] Anonymous group to gain the farmers' trust and gain video access to their fields. Talk about undercover.

Taco Bell has the answer to all of these problems: Put less meat in your meat! They were recently sued by a woman alleging that the "beef" in their beef tacos contained less than 50% beef. Au contraire, they responded, our beef contains closer to 88% beef! Hmm. Their ingredient list is not inspiring, and their explanation is weasely. But at the end of the day, it's not all that different from the worst of the processed food you can buy at the supermarket.

Bon appetit, folks.

Forbes Magazine Still Doesn't Get It: Monsanto Is Still Evil

At the beginning of 2010, Forbes Magazine named Monsanto "Company of the Year", and wrote a long paean to them. I responded here.

It's worth reading the comments posted to the Forbes website in response to their article, here. I looked through the first page of them: no one supported Monsanto; everyone expressed dismay at Monsanto's business. Among other useful links that came out of the comments: How to Avoid GMO/Monsanto (aimed at folks buying seeds, necessary because Monsanto is buying up as many independent seed companies as they can); Non-GMO Shopping Guide (including a short Tips for Avoiding GMOs and an extensive Guide, also available for iPhone).

I recently learned that Forbes published a "retraction", of sorts. The author who wrote the original article has written a new piece entitled "Forbes Was Wrong On Monsanto. Really Wrong." I saw the title and was filled with hope. Had Forbes come to understand that their endorsement of Monsanto was short-sighted?

No. They're saying that they were wrong because they had predicted great things for Monsanto's stock price, and it had not performed as hoped. They are still defending Monsanto's fundamental strategy.

To me, this is a vivid illustration of the growing divide between those who favor corporate interests, and those who favor the human interests. This divide is MUCH more important than Democrat-versus-Republican or liberal-versus-conservative. I would urge everyone to evaluate life choices, small and large, using this frame of reference, rather than the "political" frames.

Oh, and please cancel your subscription to Forbes.

Boycott Forbes Magazine

Fact is stranger than fiction. I couldn't have made this up. Forbes Magazine just named Monsanto "Company of the Year" for 2009:

http://www.monsanto.com/monsanto_today/2010/company_of_the_year.asp

The award came in the same issue as this extraordinarily shallow article, which reads like a press release:

http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2010/0118/americas-best-company-10-gmos-dupont-planet-versus-monsanto.html

(Is that journalism?)

In my opinion, Monsanto poses the greatest risk to our food supply of any corporate or governmental entity on the planet. Manifestos on the Future of Food and Seed, edited by Vandana Shiva, is an excellent collection of essays that explores some of the issues quite eloquently, and from a few different perspectives. Or, for those who prefer a video format, I offer The World According to Monsanto:



If you don't have time for the book or the video, you can search the Internet for monsanto is evil and see what you get.

I'm already boycotting Monsanto to the best of my ability, so it's time to boycott Forbes.

---

Or perhaps it's long past time to boycott Forbes. Here's the opening paragraph of this article written by Forbes editor Michael Noer in their 8/22/2006 issue:

Guys: a word of advice. Marry pretty women or ugly ones. Short ones or tall ones. Blondes or brunettes. Just, whatever you do, don't marry a woman with a career.

It doesn't even matter to me what the rest of the article says, or what the context is. Opening like this is utterly beyond the pale, even though it was no doubt intended to be "controversial" or "provocative". For the magazine to have published it says quite a bit about their attitude. And for them not to have acknowledged their mistake, but instead to have dignified it with a "counterpoint" written by a woman, says even more.

Please cancel my subscription to your magazine. And I will no longer be advertising with you. Thank you very much.

Food, Inc.

A few weeks ago, I wrote about the movie Fresh. Last Monday night, I went to an advance screening of another food sustainability movie: Food, Inc. Food, Inc. is similar to Fresh in some ways. Both films cover a lot of the same territory covered by Omnivore's Dilemma; both include commentary from Michael Pollan and Joel Salatin; and both depict the gruesome reality of industrial animal and grain farming. Both filmmakers seem to have been motivated by the same desire for justice and transparency in our food system. Food, Inc., however, goes several steps farther than Fresh in detailing the ecological, nutritional, and ethical disasters of industrial meat and "conventional" monocrop farming. It also digs deeper into the ties between industry and government regulatory agencies, painting an unflattering picture of Republicans and Democrats alike. It is a film about both the big picture and the gritty details. If there's a movie out there that will lead people to abjure meat of unknown origin (MOUO), this is it. Food, Inc. will ultimately be more effective than Fresh. Food, Inc. is more incisive, more polished, has better distribution, and includes a clearer call-to-action for the viewer. For the same reasons, it will be the target of more antagonism. Already, even before the film had been released, Monsanto had posted a "fact" page taking issue with some of the claims of the film. (The filmmaker was on hand at the screening, and, not surprisingly, refuted pretty much all of Monsanto's claims.) That this film even got onto Monsanto's radar is significant. It means that the lines of battle are being drawn, and that the forces of industrial food are taking the real food movement seriously. Do you remember Fahrenheit 9/11 in summer of 2004, or An Inconvenient Truth in 2006? We need a breakthrough film for the cause of real food. Go see Food, Inc., and bring a friend or five. The more people who see this film, the more theatres it will reach, and the more press it will get. This is how movements start.