Quantcast
GMO

In Blow to Monsanto, Arkansas Ban on Controversial Herbicide to Remain

Monsanto lost its bid to overturn Arkansas' ban on dicamba, a controversial weedkiller linked to extensive damage to famers' crops in the state as well as several other states.

The agribusiness giant makes a version of the herbicide called XtendiMax that's paired with its seeds that are genetically engineered to resist the product. DuPont Co. and BASF SE also sell their own dicamba-based formulations.

Keep reading... Show less
Sponsored
Climate

6 Ways Trump Is Bad for Food, Health and the Environment

By George Kimbrell

One year down, three to go. Trump and his enablers are hell bent on destroying or selling to the highest bidder the federal agencies they are charged with running in the public interest. In the past year, they have been unrelenting in their attacks on food safety, environmental protections, climate change, government transparency and so many other values we hold dear. We are in the midst of the most significant environmental and public health challenges imaginable. We're no longer dreading the harm the Trump administration could do to our health and environment—we're living it.

Keep reading... Show less
Popular

Iowans Fight Back Against Factory Farms—So Can You

Ready for some inspiration? Check out this video of a press conference that took place earlier this month in Iowa.

Keep reading... Show less
Popular
Art Cullen, editor of the Storm Lake Times, is hugged Monday by his son, Tom, a reporter for the newspaper, at the newspaper office. Art Cullen won the Pulitzer Prize for editorial writing. Photo credit: Dolores Cullen / Storm Lake Times

Family-Run Paper Wins Pulitzer for Exposing Big Ag Corruption

By Nika Knight

Prestigious Pulitzer Prizes on Monday were awarded to investigations that tackled President Donald Trump, Big Ag and international offshore tax havens, rewarding reporters that took on today's powers-that-be.

Keep reading... Show less
Popular

Trump's Pick for China Ambassador a 'Big Gift to Big Ag'

Iowa Gov. Terry Branstad has been nominated to serve as U .S. Ambassador to China in Donald Trump's Administration, a pick that has some of Big Ag's biggest players celebrating.

Donald Trump has chosen Iowa Governor Terry Branstad as ambassador to China. Twitter

Branstad is the longest-serving governor in U.S. history with 22 non-consecutive years and going under his belt. During his tenure, he has built significant relationships with Iowa's agribusinesses and has helped spur trade of the state's beef, pork and soy products to Asian consumers, and once struck a $4.3 billion deal with Chinese officials for Iowa's exports.

This past October, China signed a $2.1 billion deal for Iowa soybeans to feed Chinese livestock. In November, less than a week after Trump's presidential win, Branstad traveled to China to promote Iowa beef and pork. It was his seventh such trip to China as governor.

The Republican governor's friendship with Chinese president Xi Jinping goes back three decades after Xi visited rural Iowa in 1985.

"Ensuring the countries with the two largest economies and two largest militaries in the world maintain a collaborative and cooperative relationship is needed more now than ever," Branstad said after Trump's announcement.

At a Wednesday meeting in St. Louis with United Soybean Board and the American Soybean Association, Monsanto chief technology officer Robb Fraley praised the president-elect's latest top-level pick.

"[Fraley] said Branstad's past work on behalf of biotech acceptance and advocacy for U.S. agriculture makes him an excellent choice for the role," according to Farm Journal editor Susan Luke.

China, Monsanto and Iowa are all linked by the humble soybean. Monsanto controls 90 percent of soybean production in the U.S. and Iowa happens to be a top soybean grower, with 97 percent of the state's soybeans grown from genetically modified (GMO) seeds. China is the world's largest soybean consumer, importing about 25 percent of all U.S. soy produced.

Soybeans sold to China are "the largest U.S. agricultural export as their value rose from about $400,000 annually during 1996-97 to as high as $14.5 billion in 2014," Fred Gale, U.S. Department of Agriculture agricultural economist told ChinaDaily USA.

China's booming population is driving increased meat consumption and increased imports of corn and soybeans to feed livestock. Incidentally, China has banned the cultivation of GMO crops, as Chinese consumers are generally fearful of the food's perceived health risks. Rather, the country buys GMO soy for cooking oil or animal feed. But in recent years, China has pushed for the domestic commercialization of GMO soybeans, spending billions on research. President Xi himself called for the domestic cultivation of GMO crops in 2014.

Branstad's nomination was also praised by Iowa Corn Growers Association president Kurt Hora, noting that China does not just buy corn to feed its animals, it's also a large buyer of U.S. ethanol.

"China is an important market for U.S. corn in all forms including the second-largest purchaser of U.S. ethanol last marketing year; and a critical buyer of U.S. distiller's dried grains (DDGS). The China/Hong Kong market is also the third largest customer for both U.S. pork and beef exports," Hora said.

Corn ethanol has been touted as an energy alternative, but the biofuel "might be worse than petroleum when total greenhouse gas emissions are considered," Scientific American explained.

Mother Jones's Tom Philpott called Trump's choice of Branstad a "gift" to Big Ag, highlighting the governor's close ties to Bruce Rastetter, the CEO of Summit Agriculture Group, a major Iowa pork and ethanol producer, who contributed $164,875 towards Branstad's run for governor in 2010. Eldon Roth, CEO of Beef Products International, contributed another $152,000.

Not only that, "back in 2011, the governor also tapped Rastetter's brother Brent, who then ran a business constructing industrial-scale hog-rearing facilities, to the state's Environmental Protection Commission. Branstad also signed into law one of those infamous "ag gag" bills, championed by Big Ag, that make it a crime to secretly document conditions inside livestock farms," Philpott wrote.

Ronnie Cummins, the director of the Organic Consumers Association, criticized Trump's latest pick.

"[The selection of] Iowa Governor Terry Branstad for U.S. Ambassador to China is good news for the factory farm cartel, the ethanol lobby, Big Pharma Bayer and Monsanto, but very bad news for organic consumers and farmers, as well as everyone in the world who cares about justice, healthy food and soils, the environment, humane treatment of animals and re-stabilizing our dangerously out-of-control climate," Cummins told EcoWatch.

Ken Roseboro, the editor and publisher of the Organic & Non-GMO Report, agreed.

"As an Iowan, I've seen that Governor Terry Branstad has been a big supporter of factory farms in Iowa, which threaten the environment, human health and quality of life for Iowans," Roseboro told EcoWatch. "His appointment as Ambassador to China is likely to accelerate that unsustainable trend since China is deeply involved in Iowa's pork production and factory farms."

Health and environmental advocates have been very critical of Trump's recent slew of nominations for his incoming administration. Just yesterday, the president-elect announced his pick of Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt to head the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 350.org's Executive Director May Boeve called Pruitt a fossil fuel "puppet."

"Donald Trump appears destined for the Guinness Book of Records for appointing the most corrupt and dangerous administration officials in U.S. history," Cummins told EcoWatch. "If I were a Reality TV host, my message to Donald and his cronies would be clear: You're fired."

Sponsored
GMO

Ten Ways Monsanto and Big Ag Are Trying to Kill You—And the Planet

Organic Consumers Association

Energy-intensive industrial farming practices that rely on toxic chemicals and genetically engineered crops are not just undermining public health, they're destroying the planet.

Here's how:

  1. Generating massive greenhouse gas pollution (CO2, methane, nitrous oxide) and global warming, while promoting false solutions such as industrial biofuels, so-called drought-resistant crops, and genetically engineered trees
  2. Polluting the environment and the soil-food web with pesticides, chemical fertilizers, and persistent toxins, including dioxin
  3. Draining and polluting wetlands and aquifers, turning farmland into desert
  4. Poisoning wells and municipal drinking water, lakes, and rivers
  5. Chopping down the rainforests for monoculture GMO crops, biofuels and cattle grazing
  6. Increasing the cost of food, while reducing nutrition and biodiversity
  7. Spawning pesticide-resistant superbugs and weeds, and antibiotic-resistant bacteria
  8. Generating new and more virulent plant, animal and human diseases
  9. Utilizing wasteful fossil fuel-intensive practices and encouraging the expansion of natural gas fracking and tar sands extraction (which destroy forests, aquifers, and farmland)
  10. Stealing money from the 99 percent to give huge subsidies to the 1 percent wealthiest, most chemical and energy-intensive farms and food producers

It's not enough to stop eating genetically engineered food. If we want a liveable planet we've got to boycott all factory farmed food and make the great transition from energy and chemical-intensive agriculture to a relocalized and organic system of food and farming. The world according to monsanto is a recipe for disaster. Monsanto and Big Ag contaminate every link in the food chain, threatening the very foundation of life—living nutrient-rich soil, clean water, resilient crops, healthy animals, stable climates, and diverse food sources. The good news is that agro-ecological and organic methods can reverse this threat and sustain food production for future generations, but we don't have much time to turn things around.

Take action by clicking here.

For more information, click here.

GMO

Federal District Court Hears Oral Arguments against Monsanto

Food Freedom

On Jan. 31 family farmers from across the country took part in the first phase of the Organic Seed Growers and Trade Association (OSGATA) et al. v. Monsanto court case. The case was filed to protect farmers from genetic trespass by Monsanto’s genetically modified (GMO) seed, which can contaminate organic and non-GMO farmers’ crops and open farmers up to abusive lawsuits.

About 200 supporters met at Foley Square in Manhattan the morning of Jan. 31. In total, more than 300,000 people are represented by 83 plaintiffs from 36 organizations in the case against Monsanto.

As a result of aggressive lawsuits against farmers with contaminated crops, Monsanto has created an atmosphere of fear in rural America and driven dozens of farmers into bankruptcy. Farmers now have the opportunity to fight back and have their voices heard in a court of law.

The Federal District Court judge has agreed to hear oral arguments in this landmark case to decide whether or not the case will move forward. The judge has until March 31st to make a decision.

Occupy Wall Street Food Justice, Occupy Big Food and Food Democracy Now! assembled at Foley Square in solidarity with farmers on the front lines of the struggle against corporate domination of the nation's food system.

To learn more about the details of the case, click here.

For more information, click here.

Sponsored
GMO

Five Outrageous Food Stories of 2011

Food & Water Watch

By Rich Bindell

There’s never a shortage of interesting and incendiary stories about food issues to choose from at the end of the year. This year is no exception. As we continue to build our campaign to improve the Farm Bill in 2012, we can see examples of why this work is so important just by taking a look at some of the most outrageous food stories of 2011…

1. Attack on Food Safety Budgets

2011 started out with a bang. Our food safety programs got banged up by threatened budget cuts. In addition, we witnessed a number of food recalls due to contamination that threatened public health with serious illness and, in some cases, even death. It’s not a surprise that a large and complex food system such as ours requires an aggressive approach to food safety. Unfortunately, federal and state governments’ ability to use that strategy was weakened when food safety budgets were slashed. While the meat and poultry inspection program at the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) escaped relatively unscathed, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) didn’t fare as well. FDA’s budget only allotted about half of what it needed to put the newly passed Food Safety Modernization Act into action. In 2012, Congress needs to get their food safety priorities in order.

2. Fair Livestock Rule

2011 gave USDA another opportunity to level the playing field for livestock producers in a marketplace controlled by large meatpackers and chicken processing companies. But along with Congress, they blew it again. When USDA submitted the final version on the long-awaited GIPSA rule for final White House approval, they cut out the most critical parts that would have equalized competition for independent cattle and hog producers. USDA has had the authority to crack down on unfair practices meatpackers and processing companies use to put farmers and ranchers at a disadvantage since 1921. But the department has never used the authority it had. As a result, the livestock marketplace has become highly consolidated to the point where a mere four companies supply most of the meat sold in supermarkets. The 2008 Farm Bill included a provision that told USDA to finally use its authority and stop the most abusive practices in the meat industry. But as soon as that bill passed, the meat industry went to work in Washington, D.C., and three years later they succeeded in gutting the proposed rule. House republicans, Big Ag and President Obama’s lack of leadership are to blame for this failure to change agriculture policy for the better. Which is why we need to keep building a powerful movement that can take this industry on.

3. Taxpayers funding Genetically Engineered (GE) salmon

AquaBounty’s GE salmon is controversial enough on its own merit—we certainly weren’t thrilled to learn that the FDA continues to fund further research by the company that wants to bring the first genetically engineered animal to our dinner tables. The FDA themselves questioned some of AquaBounty’s claims that their GE salmon eggs were 100 percent sterile and that it would be virtually impossible for GE salmon to invade the natural habitat of wild salmon, yet they still managed to round up some money—$494,000 in a troubled economy, no less—to give to the Massachusetts-based company for further research on sterilizing the eggs. In fact, since 2003, the federal government has provided AquaBounty with $2.4 million in federal research grants. That’s taxpayer money being thrown at an experiment that most Americans have insisted they don’t want. And who would blame consumers for their concerns? AquaBounty’s egg production facility in Canada had tested positive in 2009 for what appears to be a new strain of Salmon Anaemia virus, which can be deadly to salmon. Its presence at the AquaBounty facility casts serious doubt on their production practices. Let’s hope that 2012 is the year when the FDA abandons GE salmon.

4. Arsenic in Apple Juice

According to ABC News, one of the top five health stories of 2011 was the unfortunate discovery that many of the biggest brands of apple juice products contained arsenic. This summer, Food & Water Watch and Empire State Consumer Project shared some test results with the FDA regarding the amount of arsenic that was found in several popular brands of apple juice. The amount of arsenic found was higher than the level allowed in drinking water. Moms around the country were understandably concerned and many expressed outrage over using a poisonous chemical in a food product primarily consumed by kids. Dr. Mehmet Oz from The Dr. Oz Show invited Food & Water Watch Deputy Director Patty Lovera to appear on his show and blog on his website in order to discuss how arsenic ended up in apple juice, as well as why consumers should pay close attention to where their food is coming from. In the case of apple juice, much of it comes from China, where food safety standards are not as high as they are here in the U.S. It’s time for the FDA to set a limit for arsenic in juice so there is no more confusion about how much is acceptable. In 2012, let’s get rid of the arsenic. That’s so 2011.

5. Beaver Anal Glands (A rude awakening from a former food exec.)

This year, we found out about something so horrific and so wrong that it seems to defy logic. We found out the hard way what it means to the food industry when they include “natural flavors” in the ingredients list. Thanks to the blog of former food executive Bruce Bradley, it’s clear that some natural flavorings are best left alone. Some processed food companies, somehow (I don’t want to know exactly how), extract (gracefully and gently, I hope) bodily fluids from the back door of those loveable, semi-aquatic mammals known as beavers. That’s right, we learned that beaver anal glands are a somewhat common substance found in processed food, used to replicate or enhance the flavor of raspberry or vanilla. Yuck. Advice for 2012? Use raspberries for raspberry flavor and leave the beaver butts alone.

For more information, click here.

Database Reveals Who's Cashing in on USDA's Subsidies

Environmental Working Group

The Environmental Working Group (EWG) released a Direct Payment Database Nov. 10, giving taxpayers a look inside the complex agriculture partnerships and corporations that got the lion’s share of $4.7 billion in federal direct payments to farmers in 2009. EWG found that the 10 agribusinesses receiving the biggest payouts raked in a total of $5.4 million. The biggest payments went to large agribusinesses in the southern states of Arkansas, Louisiana, Georgia, Tennessee and Mississippi.

The database also provides the names of the individuals who ultimately cashed the subsidy checks, whose identities have been hidden by these corporate structures and not publicly disclosed by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) since the 2008 farm bill.

Direct payments, promoted as a safety net for working farm and ranch families, are in reality annual cash giveaways to the most profitable businesses in farm country. The average crop subsidy payment to the top ten recipients in 2009 was $542,172 apiece—about 10 times more than the average American earns annually. A total of 160 individuals ultimately collected payments through these 10 farm enterprises.

“This new data underscores why direct payments should be eliminated. The savings could help reduce the deficit and bolster conservation and nutrition programs,” said Craig Cox, EWG’s vice president for Agriculture and Natural Resources. “It is remarkable that some in the subsidy lobby are still trying to cling onto this wasteful and unnecessary program.”

The recipient of the single biggest direct payment was Ratio Farms in Helena, Ark. EWG’s database identifies the 26 individuals who cashed in on the operation’s $874,666 in subsidy payments. Each one received about $33,600 in 2009—barely $6,000 below USDA’s $40,000 limit on how much each person is eligible to receive annually.

In its 2010 EWG farm subsidy database update released earlier this year, EWG was unable to identify individual recipients because the USDA now only provides this information on a program by program basis, making it easier for many of the individual beneficiaries to shield their receipt of tax dollars behind paper farms and corporate entity shell games. EWG obtained the additional data under the federal Freedom of Information Act and is still waiting for the 2010 records.

Since the early 90s, EWG has worked to transform USDA’s current system of direct payments into a program that would actually target assistance to working farm and ranch families that need help to stay on the land, but until now the Big Ag subsidy lobby has blocked all attempts at meaningful reform. Now it is time to simply end direct payments, which are finally in the budget crosshairs as Congress works to reduce the federal deficit. Reformers, however, are still facing a full-court press from entrenched corporate agriculture interests, which want to replace the handouts with an expensive new entitlement to guarantee the business income of the very same highly profitable farm businesses that have long profited from direct payments.

EWG thinks that is the wrong way to go. Instead, it recommends:

• Eliminating direct payments, counter-cyclical payments, loan deficiency payments, ACRE (Average Crop Revenue Election) and SURE (Supplemental Revenue Assistance Payments).

• Providing every farmer with a free crop insurance policy that covers yield losses of more than 30 percent and eliminating federal premium and other subsidies for revenue-based or other crop insurance products.

• Having the federal government take bids from insurance companies to service these policies, eliminating insurers’ recent windfall profits and encouraging the private sector to develop and offer innovative options for farmers to increase insurance coverage—but not at taxpayers’ expense.

• Requiring producers to meet a basic standard of conservation practices in order to be eligible for publicly financed crop insurance.

• Ensuring full transparency by requiring USDA to disclose who is getting the free policies, the cost to taxpayers and how much farmers receive in insurance payouts.

For more information, click here.

Sponsored

mail-copy

The best of EcoWatch, right in your inbox. Sign up for our email newsletter!