David versus Monsanto: A Documentary on GMO

David versus Monsanto: A Documentary on GMO

Monsanto has long been trying to establish control over the seeds of the plants that produce food for the world. They have patented a number of genetically altered food crops, which can only be grown with proper license, and the seeds for which must be purchased anew each year.
Alas, genetically engineered (GE) crops cannot be contained. And rather than being found guilty of contaminating farmers' property, Monsanto has successfully sued hundreds of unsuspecting farmers for patent infringement when unlicensed GE crops were found growing in their fields. Many farmers have subsequently, quite literally, lost their farms.
Percy Schmeiser of Saskatchewan, Canada, is but one of Monsanto's victims, but contrary to so many others, he refused to quietly tolerate the injustice. In a classic case of David versus Goliath, Schmeiser fought back against one of the most powerful businesses in the world.

David versus Goliath

It all began in 1998, at which time Schmeiser had grown canola on his farm for 40 years. Like any other traditional farmer, he used his own seeds, saved from the previous harvest.
But, like hundreds of other North American farmers, Schmeiser ended up being sued by Monsanto for 'patent infringement' when more than 320 hectares were found to be contaminated with Roundup Ready canola—the biotech giant's patented canola, genetically engineered to tolerate otherwise lethal doses of glyphosate.
The company sought damages totaling $400,000. Most farmers end up settling, but Schmeiser was angry enough to fight back, and countersued Monsanto for:

• Libel, by publicly accusing him of committing illegal acts
• Trespassing
• Improperly obtaining samples of his seed from a local seed plant
• Callous disregard for the environment by introducing genetically modified crops without proper controls and containment
• Contamination of his crops with unwanted GE plants

The case eventually went before the Federal Court of Canada, and after a decade-long battle, Schmeiser won when, in March 2008, Monsanto settled out of court, agreeing to pay for all cleanup costs. The agreement also specified that Schmeiser would not be under gag-order, and that Monsanto can be sued for recontamination. This landmark case is now featured in the documentary film "David versus Monsanto," which you can view in its entirety above.

The Dangerous Contamination Propagating All Around Americans

Sadly, Schmeiser's victory is a rare case. While Monsanto and the rest of the opposition of California's Proposition 37 try to instill fear of lawsuits, which they claim could result if genetically engineered foods were to require labeling, they themselves have no problems suing farmers for patent infringement when their seeds migrate and contaminate neighboring fields.
This despite the scientific evidence (in addition to the common knowledge of every traditional farmer out there) that GE contamination is an absolute given. You simply cannot contain it within a given area. What's worse, we now have proof that GE crops not only spread outside the boundaries of any given field, they're also combining into brand new, completely unintended forms in the wild! According to a study published in the journal PLoS ONE¹ last year:

"[W]e conducted a systematic roadside survey of canola (Brassica napus) populations growing outside of cultivation in North Dakota, USA, the dominant canola growing region in the U.S. We document the presence of two escaped, transgenic genotypes, as well as non-GE canola, and provide evidence of novel combinations of transgenic forms in the wild. Our results demonstrate that feral populations are large and widespread. Moreover, flowering times of escaped populations, as well as the fertile condition of the majority of collections suggest that these populations are established and persistent outside of cultivation." [Emphasis mine]

Still, Monsanto gets away with these ridiculous lawsuits, when in fact they are the ones who really should be held responsible for cleaning up the mess when its seeds spread beyond intended perimeters. But contamination isn't the only issue showing up in court. Farmers also sign an "iron-clad" agreement to not save or use the seed for the next planting season. They must repurchase the seed for each planting. This has turned ancient agricultural practices into an outright crime...

Patented Seeds Turn Ancient Agricultural Practices into a Crime

Most recently, the US Supreme Court agreed to hear the appeal by Indiana soybean farmer Vernon Hugh Bowman—one of seven current appeals before the court—who disputes Monsanto's claim that his farm used the patented seeds without authorization.
As reported by Bloomberg²:

"Bowman used the patented seeds, but also bought cheaper soybeans from a grain elevator and used those to plant a second crop. Most of the new soybeans also were resistant to weed killers, as they initially came from herbicide-resistant seeds, too. Bowman repeated the practice over eight years. Monsanto sued when it learned what he was doing. The company has filed lawsuits around the country to enforce its policy against saving the seeds for the future."

Last year, CBS News Chief Investigative Correspondent Armen Keteyian investigated the problems facing farmers as a result of patented biotech crops³. David Runyon and his wife almost lost their 900-acre farm over a seed they claim they never planted. Mrs. Runyon told CBS:

"I don't believe any company has the right to come into someone's home and threaten their livelihood [and] to bring them into such physical turmoil as this company did to us."... "Pollination occurs, wind drift occurs. There's just no way to keep their products from landing in our fields," David [Runyon] said.

Farmers are not the only ones getting sued. Mo Parr, a 74-year old seed cleaner was also sued by Monsanto for "aiding and abetting" farmers in violating the company's patent. Seed cleaners are hired by farmers to separate debris from the seed to be replanted. "There's no way that I could be held responsible. There's no way that I could look at a soy bean and tell you if it's Round-up Ready," Parr told CBS⁴. Amazingly, Monsanto won its case against Parr.

Should Genetically Engineered Foods Be Labeled?

A recent article in the Pittsburg Post-Gazette⁵ highlights the issues at hand when it comes to labeling of these patented crops. The article quotes farmer Jim Bridge, who does not use GE seeds on his farm:

"Here is my argument on the whole deal. When you read the seed catalogs, the licensing agreements for genetically engineered corn say you can't feed animals any of the corn husks, corn stock or any byproduct off those seeds. "So what the hell am I eating the corn for?

This is the issue facing California voters on November 6. Proposition 37, a state ballot initiative that would require genetically engineered foods to be labeled, has become a hotbed of controversy as the biotech industry, led by Monsanto, has pulled out all the stops to mislead the public into voting against it.
Their entire premise is flawed. Just consider how many other ingredients must by law be included on the label, yet somehow something as critical as whether the food has been genetically altered or not is supposed to be of no consequence to buyers! Nothing could be further from the truth—especially in light of mounting evidence demonstrating that GE foods can cause severe health problems over the long term.

Shocking Report: Americans Eat Their Weight and More in GE Foods Each Year

All the safety studies submitted to approve GMO seeds were only short term. The world's first lifetime feeding study discovered that rats fed a diet containing 11 percent GE corn developed massive breast tumors, kidney and liver damage and other serious health problems in the 13th month of life. The average life span of a rat is about two years. Again, this was the FIRST study to evaluate the health effects of a GE-containing diet over the course of a lifetime. This despite the fact that the first GE crops were introduced into the US food supply in the mid-90's!
The fact of the matter is that the long-term health effects and safety of these crops have never actually been properly evaluated or affirmed prior to being approved for widespread planting. This information is absolutely critical for American families raising young children. Yet at present, they have no way of avoiding foods that contain GE ingredients, should they wish to do so.

Hurricane Sandy wreaks agricultural havoc | MNN - Mother Nature Network

Hurricane Sandy wreaks agricultural havoc | MNN - Mother Nature Network

Hurricane Sandy slams the U.S. East Coast, as seen by NASA's GOES-13 satellite. (Photo: NASA)

2012 has already been a rough year for farming in North America, as crops withered under record heat, drought and wildfire, while others washed away in Hurricane Isaac's torrential rains. This followed similar problems in 2011, ranging from the historic Texas drought to Mississippi River floods and Hurricane Irene.

 

Despite all the recent setbacks, however, farmers were dealt yet another blow this week as Superstorm Sandy flogged and flooded a swath of crops along its 2,000-mile path. The post-tropical cyclone hit in late October, when many U.S. growers have already harvested summer produce, but it still found ways to wreak havoc.

 

Sandy got started in the Caribbean, killing more than 60 people before surging north toward the U.S. East Coast. The majority of those deaths were in Haiti, where heavy rainfall caused devastating floods and landslides that crushed buildings, wiped out roads and inundated farmland. "Most of the agricultural crops that were left from Hurricane Isaac were destroyed during Sandy," Prime Minister Laurent Lamothe told Reuters, "so food security will be an issue."

 

Cuba took a direct hit as Sandy grew into a category 2 hurricane, and 20 to 30 percent of the country's coffee farms were destroyed overnight, according to Food World News. The worst damage occurred in the Sierra Maestra mountains, where 92 percent of Cuban coffee beans are grown, and it came just as the harvest normally peaks in late October and early November. Experts say Cuba may now produce less than 4,000 metric tons of coffee in 2012, its lowest output in more than a century. Sandy also struck hard in the Bahamas, where farmers lost crops such as bananas, cassava, tomatoes and watermelons, the Eleutheran newspaper reports.

 

Damage assessments remain underway in the U.S., with many towns still in disaster-relief mode. At least 50 deaths are confirmed so far, and some estimates suggest damage could exceed $20 billion. Yet the overall impact on U.S. agriculture may be less severe than in the Caribbean, since the summer growing season is over in cooler climates and many farmers sped up harvesting ahead of the storm. "Sandy is a big weather story, but it's mainly a human life issue on the East Coast — no real impact on crops or harvest," John Dee of Global Weather Monitoring tells the Economic Times.

 

That's not the case everywhere, though. Localized crop damage has been severe, including at some New York City outfits like Red Hook Community Farm and Battery Urban Farm, which were flooded by several feet of seawater. Many rooftop gardens escaped the floods and endured the winds, according to the New York Observer, but it wasn't just plants in the line of fire. "The bees got washed away, flooded out," says the chief operating officer of Brooklyn Grange, which had the city's largest commercial apiary. "It was pretty devastating."

 

It's important to realize Sandy didn't occur in a vacuum, points out ecologist Steven Apfelbaum of Applied Ecological Services in Wisconsin. "This isn't the only storm that's impacted agriculture in the U.S. this year," he tells MNN. "We've had intense, damaging storms over large areas of the U.S., one of the most extensive droughts in recent history, and we had nearly 500 heat records broken during just one day in August." Even small shifts have taken a big toll, he adds. "The fruit crops in Wisconsin and Michigan were blooming three weeks earlier than normal this year, then we got normal spring weather conditions and lost nearly 100 percent." Combined with the effects of Hurricane Sandy, Apfelbaum says U.S. crop-insurance claims in 2012 could be "profoundly larger than anything we've ever seen in this country."

 

While no one can directly link a single storm to global warming, the wild weather of 2011 and 2012 is exactly what climate models have been predicting for years: longer droughts and stronger storms. "Before, climate change was talked about as an abstraction, something that would happen in the future," Apfelbaum says. "But the changes we're experiencing now are not abstract at all. They're very real."

 

The issue of climate change has been conspicuously absent from this year's U.S. presidential race, but storms like Sandy are reminders that it can't be ignored forever. And while politicians dance around it, Apfelbaum says farmers should take initiative to protect themselves. "Build buffers into your farm plans where streams overflow, areas that are going to be able to absorb the recoil," he says. "Put in grassy waterways and native, deep-rooted perennial plant buffers. Take some of your land out of these row-crop uses and build intrinsic capacity for absorbing the impact on your own land."

Evidence of pesticide harm to bees is now swarming | Damian Carrington | Environment | guardian.co.uk

Evidence of pesticide harm to bees is now swarming | Damian Carrington | Environment | guardian.co.uk

The new paper, published in Nature, shows that bumblebees foraging naturally and exposed to realistic doses of pesticides suffer in two key ways. First they are about twice as likely to die: two-thirds of the bees are lost when exposed to two pesticides compared to only a third when not exposed. Second, the exposed bees are half as successful in gathering food.
The new results reveal, again, shameful failings in the regulatory regime. The ecotoxicology tests currently required only look at honey bees. Yet bumblebees, the subject of the new research, are just as important in providing the pollination that creates much of the food we eat. Tomatoes, for example, rely on bumblebees. Furthermore, bumblebees are very different, bigger in size individually, but living in colonies of just dozens, compared to the tens of thousands in honey bee colonies.
Another failing is that current tests require just 96 hours of exposure, but the new research only saw the damaging effect after three weeks. "If we had done our study for just 96 hours, our conclusions would have been very different," says Nigel Raine, at Royal Holloway, University of London, one of the research team.
Yet another failing is that pesticides are only tested individually, not in the combination bees are exposed to in reality. The new work clearly shows a damaging cumulative effect from a combination of just two pesticides.

How To Power Through The Next Sandy | Fast Company

How To Power Through The Next Sandy | Fast Company

The aftermath of Hurricane Sandy has left more than 8 million people without power and without the ability to power up critical devices--including cell phones. Sure, there are rechargeable batteries and power inverters on the market to help you in a pinch, but they require the foresight to stock up ahead of time, and they aren't always reliable.
Fortunately, several tech companies are developing grid-free solutions for the times when you need quick, reliable access to alternative power sources.
For Cleveland-based Tremont Electronics, that alternative power source is your own body. Tremont makes the nPower PEG, or Personal Energy Generator, a small, wand-like device you can carry with you as you go about your day and your normal activities, such as walking, running, or biking. The nPower PEG converts the kinetic energy you generate into electricity that can immediately power smaller devices you hook it up to (think smartphones and MP3 players, not laptops and tablets).
CEO Aaron LeMieux originally came up with the idea for the nPower PEG while on a 1,500-mile hike on the Appalachian trail. It's the first product from Tremont, and at $200 a pop, it's much more expensive than simply picking up a rechargeable battery pack.

"You can get a standard rechargeable battery pack and throw it in your backpack and leave it there for a couple of months, but that battery pack will have drained itself by then," he says. "So while you think you have the security of this backup battery, that's really not the case."
Though LeMieux had active, outdoorsy types in mind as the nPower PEG's target audience, he recently ran into a customer who had ordered one for a personal hurricane disaster kit.
"We'd seen lots of orders going to California and Oregon, places where you knew there were lots of active outdoors people," he says. "But that's something we hadn't thought of before."
K-TOR's Pocket Socket hand crank power generator is another personal energy generator option that can handle slightly larger devices, such as tablets, but is still small enough to fit in your pocket. And because of its powerful 10-watt generator, the Pocket Socket charges your devices at the same rate as your standard household electrical outlet.
For the solar power enthusiasts, Fenix International has created the powerful ReadySet Solar Kit, funded via Kickstarter, and capable of powering up to 10 iPhones on a single charge. ReadySet can even fuel Wi-Fi hotspots. What's neat about the ReadySet is it allows you to harness energy from a variety of sources, including solar panels, bicycle generators, and micro-wind turbines.
If you're out of power (or need a temporary home) right now, check out SandyCrashPads, a service that matches up people who need places to stay with people who have available rooms.

#Frankenstorm Sandy, Climate Science and 'Reverse Tribalism' - NYTimes.com

#Frankenstorm Sandy, Climate Science and 'Reverse Tribalism' - NYTimes.com

I’ve posted his essay on Slideshare because it’s worth reading and sharing on its own. But I wanted to address his notion now in the context of the intense push to interpret the current superstorm in the context of action on greenhouse gases, and my reaction to it on the blog so far.
Am I “guilty” of reverse tribalism myself?
I’d say yes, with an asterisk. Let’s explore a bit:
I have sometimes perhaps been too eager to challenge definitive statements related to human-driven global warming for fear they will provide ammunition to those working to foment doubt and maintain stasis on our energy menu.
It’s that tendency of mine that probably prompted this tweet by David Roberts of Grist.org today:

@Revkin People are discussing climate change all over the place! You really need to work harder to tamp this down.
— David Roberts (@drgrist) 29 Oct 12

My self diagnosis presumes that I see myself as, by nature, a member of some particular tribe. Indeed, I grew up caring deeply about the environment, so much so that as a kid I once left a threatening note on the seat of a bulldozer digging into a last patch of woods near our home in suburban Rhode Island. If I had a choice, I’d absolutely rather sing about the Hudson River with Pete Seeger than hang out in Washington, D.C., bars with energy lobbyists.
But as a journalist, I grew into the habit of detaching my personal passions from my profession’s need to sort through arguments for some sense of bedrock. So I’m a member of the journalism tribe, as well. That hasn’t changed with my move to the Op-Ed side of the paper. My opinion is that reality matters, however inconvenient it may be.
I never obtained an advanced science degree, but in majoring in biology and working in marine fisheries science long ago, and then through decades of reading and reporting on science, I developed a passion for this endeavor as the most powerful tool yet devised to separate myths and spin from durable knowledge, including knowledge of uncertainty. So I’m in the “defenders of science” tribe, too.
So I think I exhibit what you might call intertribal tension syndrome more than the reverse tribalism trait.
There’s another factor in play, for sure. It’s what Dan Kahan of the Cultural Cognition project at Yale calls identity-protective cognition. In a fascinating post, coincidentally published today, he described this as “a species of motivated reasoning” that “reflects the tendency of individuals to form perceptions of fact that promote their connection to, and standing in, important groups.”
He goes on to say:

There are lots of instances of this. Consider sports fans who genuinely see contentious officiating calls as correct or incorrect depending on whether those calls go for or against their favorite team.
The cultural cognition thesis says that many contested issues of risk—from climate change to nuclear power, from gun control to the HPV vaccine—involve this same dynamic. The “teams,” in this setting, are the groups that subscribe to one or another of the cultural worldviews associated with “hierarchy-egalitarianism” and “individualism-communitarianism.”

Put those two traits together, in any person, and you’re bound to get some moments where one tribal affiliation wins out over another.
To step outside what Randy Olson calls the “nerd loop” (the domain of those thinking a lot about climate, risk and communication), here’s a quick reprise of points that I’ve made through 25 years of covering the two-way relationship between humans and climate:
1. The unerring buildup of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere is bound to come with regrets.
2. Many parts of the planet, from sub-Saharan Africa to the northeastern United States, are subject to extreme storms, superdroughts or other climate-related disruptions with or without a push from greenhouse gases. Greenhouse heating will worsen some extremes and is almost assuredly contributing to some (but not all) now.
3. Limiting harm from inevitable hard knocks that come with such disruptions is job one on a crowding, busy planet.
4. Working to shift from energy norms that come with large emissions of carbon dioxide is an imperative in this century (along with bringing energy by any smart means to the billions of people without reasonable sources now). But even a crash effort to blunt the greenhouse-gas buildup wouldn’t avert the need for step 3.
The wind is howling ever louder here in the Hudson Valley, and the lights are flickering with greater frequency, so it’s time to end this post before my connection to The Times is lost.

A Hot Time for California Solar Power Plants : Greentech Media

A Hot Time for California Solar Power Plants : Greentech Media

The CPUC-approved PPAs lock in an estimated annual generation of 573 gigawatt-hours from each facility “for a term of twenty years with the option for SCE to extend the term to 25 years.” According to BSE, design specifications call for Rio Mesa to produce at least 573 gigawatt-hours per year and for Sonoran West, with storage, to produce at least 733 gigawatt-hours per year.
The revised PPA for Rio Mesa provides for BSE’s planned deployment of its second-generation technology. It will have a 250-foot-taller tower than in the first-generation, 372-megawatt Ivanpah plant now under construction, allowing for a more concentrated arrangement of heliostats that will reduce the land required to two-thirds of that needed for a comparable photovoltaic (PV) or power tower project.
The revised Sonoran West PPA provides for incorporation of the newer technology, as well as the first deployment of BSE’s steam-heated molten salts storage system. Stored generating capacity will give Sonoran West more production capacity and the flexibility to serve the grid in ways that help balance transmission system supply and demand and make electricity delivery more reliable, functions more typically associated with traditional power plants.
The CPUC-approved PPA calls for Sonoran West to have “a few hours” of generating capacity “when the thermal storage system has been charged and the sun is not shining.”
Perhaps most importantly, Rio Mesa and Sonoran West won PPAs despite not having Department of Energy loan guarantees. They will be the first U.S. concentrating solar power (CSP) projects built with only marketplace investment, state incentives, and the federal investment tax credit (ITC).
According to BSE, the contracts represent billions of dollars in direct investment and more than 2,000 construction jobs for California’s economically stressed Inland Empire region.

Why care about reducing energy usage? [Infographic] | Eco-Snobbery Sucks

Why care about reducing energy usage? [Infographic] | Eco-Snobbery Sucks

useful chart that shows in great detail how much energy can be saved, esp in heating/cooling with heat pump, but no mention of far superior results with ground source heat pump, or even better, solar heat seasonal storage under house from summer long harvesting in large watertank!