The People indict Agrochemical corporations

Tribunal verdict vs. 6 agrochemical TNCs hailed, urgent action on recommendations urged


Pesticide Action Network (PAN) International hailed the verdict of the Permanent People's Tribunal (PPT) against the world's six largest agrochemical companies Monsanto, Syngenta, Bayer, Dow Chemical, DuPont and BASF after a historic four-day session that culminated in Bangalore, India yesterday.

Victims and survivors of the pesticide industry from all over the world, represented by PAN International, testified before a distinguished international jury to indict the "Big 6" for human rights violations. Based on evidence presented before it, the Tribunal found the Defendant agrochemical TNCs "responsible for gross, widespread and systematic violations of the right to health and life, economic, social and cultural rights, as well as of civil and political rights, and women and children's rights." see the verdict here

Read the whole Press release

What is the Permanent People's Tribunal?

* The Permanent People's Tribunal (PPT) is an international opinion tribunal founded in 1979, in Italy based on a "Universal Declaration of the Rights of Peoples".
* It looks into complaints of human rights abuses submitted by the communities facing the abuses.
* It uses the rigorous conventional court format.
* It issues indictment, names relevant laws and document findings.
* While its verdicts are not legally binding, these can set precedent for future legal actions against, in this case, agrochemical corporations.

here

Smoking mirrors will shatter

Monsanto's press release, Statement About Alleged Plant Pathogen Potentially Associated with Roundup Ready Crops asserts:

"Monsanto is not aware of any reliable studies that demonstrate Roundup Ready® crops are more susceptible to certain diseases or that the application of glyphosate to Roundup Ready crops increases a plant’s susceptibility to diseases".


Yet this statement can be shown as evidently false by following the (reliable) research listed here:

Glyphosate effects on diseases of plants (G.S. Johal�, D.M. Huber)

Some diseases increased in glyphosate weed control programs. (pathogen noted in bold. disease in italics, researcher and date of study)

Apple: Canker Botryosphaeriadothidea; Rosenbergerand Fargione(2004)

Banana: Panamadisease Fusariumoxysporumf. sp. cubense Harper(2007)

Barley: Root rot Magnaporthegrisea Smileyetal. (1992)

Bean: Anthracnose Colletotrichumlindemuthianum; JohalandRahe(1984, 1988, 1990)

Bean: Damping off, Pythiumspp. ; JohalandRahe(1984)

Bean: Root rot Fusariumsolanif. sp. phaseoli; Harper(2007)

Bean: Hypocotylrot Phytophthoramegasperma; Keenetal. (1982)

Canola: Crownrot Fusariumspp. Harper(2007)

Canola: Wilt Fusariumoxysporum ; Harper(2007), LargeandMcLaren(2002)

Citrus: Citrusvariegatedchlorosis Xylellafastidiosa ; Yamada(2006)

Citrus: Crownrot Phytophthoraspp; Yamada(2006)

Cotton: Dampingoff Pythiumspp. Harper(2007)

Cotton: Bunchytop Manganese deficiency ; Harper(2007)

Cotton: Wilt F. oxysporumf. sp. vasinfectum Harper(2007)

Grape: Blackgoo Phaeomoniellachlamydospora; Harper(2007)

Soybeans: Root rot Corynesporacassiicola; Huberetal. (2005)

Soybeans Targetspot Corynesporacassiicola; Huberetal. (2005)

Soybeans: Sudden Death Syndrome Fusariumsolanif. sp. glycines ; Keen et al. (1982)

Soybeans: Root rot Phytophthoramegasperma ; Keen et al. (1982)

Soybeans: Cystnematode Heteroderaglycines Geisleretal; Kremer et al. (2000)

Soybeans: Whitemold Sclerotiniasclerotiorum; Harper(2007)

Sugarbeet: Yellows Fusariumoxysporumf. sp. beta ; Larson et al. (2006)

Sugarbeet: Root rot Rhizoctoniasolani ; Larson et al. (2006)

Tomato: Crownrootrot Fusarium; Bramhall and Higgins(1988)

Tomato: Wilt Fusariumoxysporumf. sp. pisi; Harper(2007)

Various: Canker Phytophthoraspp. Harper(2007)

Wheat: Barepatch Rhizoctoniasolani; Harper(2007)

Wheat: Glumeblotch Septoriaspp. ; Harper(2007)

Wheat: Root rot Fusariumspp. Fernandez et al. (2005, 2007), Harper(2007)

Wheat: Headscab Fusariumgraminearum ; Fernandez et al. (2005)

Wheat: Take-all Gaeumannomycesgraminis; Hornby et al. (1998)

New pathogen connected to Glyphosate: "an emergency"

Reuters

Questions about the safety of a popular herbicide made by Monsanto Co have resurfaced in a warning from a U.S. scientist that claims top-selling Roundup may contribute to plant disease and health problems for farm animals.

Plant pathologist and retired Purdue University professor Don Huber has written a letter to U.S. Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack warning that a newly discovered and widespread "electron microscopic pathogen appears to significantly impact the health of plants, animals, and probably human beings." He said the pathogen appears to be connected to use of glyphosate, the key ingredient in Roundup.

Huber coordinates a committee of the American Phytopathological Society as part of the USDA National Plant Disease Recovery System. He is a long-standing critic of biotech crops, such as Monsanto's "Roundup Ready" soybean and corn, which have been genetically altered to withstand treatments of Roundup herbicide.

In his letter to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Huber said the organism has been found in high concentrations of Roundup Ready soybean meal and corn, which are used in livestock feed. He said laboratory tests have confirmed the presence of the organism in pigs, cattle and other livestock that have experienced spontaneous abortions and infertility.

The organism is also prolific in corn and soybean crops stricken by disease, according to Huber.

"I believe the threat we are facing from this pathogen is unique and of a high risk status," Huber wrote. "In layman's terms, it should be treated as an emergency."

Read the whole Reuter's story

The extensive use of glyphosate, and the rapid adoption of genetically modified glyphosate-tolerant crops such as soybean, corn, cotton, canola, sugar beets, and alfalfa; with their greatly increased application of glyphosate for simplified weed control, have intensified deficiencies of numerous essential micronutrients and some macronutrients......Lost yield, reduced quality, and increased disease are the unfortunate consequences of untreated micronutrient deficiency.

Plant pathogens stimulated by glyphosate:

Botryospheara dothidea Gaeumannomyces graminis
Corynespora cassicola Magnaporthe grisea
Fusarium species Marasmius spp.
F. avenaceum Monosporascus cannonbalus
F. graminearum Myrothecium verucaria
F. oxysporum f.sp. cubense Phaeomoniella chlamydospora
F. oxysporum f.sp. (canola) Phytophthora spp.
F. oxysporum f.sp. glycines Pythium spp.
F. oxysporum f.sp. vasinfectum Rhizoctonia solani
F. solani f.sp. glycines Septoria nodorum
F. solani f.sp. phaseoli Thielaviopsis bassicola
F. solani f.sp. pisi Xylella fastidiosa

From AG CHEMICAL AND CROP NUTRIENT INTERACTIONS – CURRENT UPDATE
Don M. Huber, Emeritus Professor, Purdue University

Dr. Huber's letter

Dear Secretary Vilsack:

A team of senior plant and animal scientists have recently brought to my attention the discovery of an electron microscopic pathogen that appears to significantly impact the health of plants, animals, and probably human beings. Based on a review of the data, it is widespread, very serious, and is in much higher concentrations in Roundup Ready (RR) soybeans and corn—suggesting a link with the RR gene or more likely the presence of Roundup. This organism appears NEW to science!

This is highly sensitive information that could result in a collapse of US soy and corn export markets and significant disruption of domestic food and feed supplies. On the other hand, this new organism may already be responsible for significant harm (see below). My colleagues and I are therefore moving our investigation forward with speed and discretion, and seek assistance from the USDA and other entities to identify the pathogen’s source, prevalence, implications, and remedies.

We are informing the USDA of our findings at this early stage, specifically due to your pending decision regarding approval of RR alfalfa. Naturally, if either the RR gene or Roundup itself is a promoter or co-factor of this pathogen, then such approval could be a calamity. Based on the current evidence, the only reasonable action at this time would be to delay deregulation at least until sufficient data has exonerated the RR system, if it does.

For the past 40 years, I have been a scientist 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, I believe the threat we are facing from this pathogen is unique and of a high risk status. In layman’s terms, it should be treated as an emergency.

................

Sincerely,

COL (Ret.) Don M. Huber
Emeritus Professor, Purdue University


Monsanto's press release, Statement About Alleged Plant Pathogen Potentially Associated with Roundup Ready Crops asserts:

"Monsanto is not aware of any reliable studies that demonstrate Roundup Ready® crops are more susceptible to certain diseases or that the application of glyphosate to Roundup Ready crops increases a plant’s susceptibility to diseases".

Yet this statement can be shown as evidently false by following the research listed here:
Glyphosate effects on diseases of plants (G.S. Johal, D.M. Huber)

NDP: Conservatives must pull approval for genetically modified alfalfa

New Democrat critic calls for protection for the integrity of this vital crop

OTTAWA – New Democrat Agriculture critic, Alex Atamanenko, today challenged the Conservatives to reverse the environmental and health approvals for genetically modified (GM) alfalfa that have been awarded to Monsanto. He was joined by Lucy Sharratt, Coordinator for the Canadian Biotechnology Action Network (CBAN), a coalition of 18 groups, and spokesperson for the "No to GMO Alfalfa" campaign which is endorsed by 80 groups.

Read the NDP press release

A primer on pesticide propaganda

"Since the recent streak of municipal pesticide bans were put into place across Canada, the pesticide industry has been on the defence. Represented by trade association CropLife Canada, the public relations strategies used by the industry were front and centre at the association's September 2007 conference in Saskatoon, which Deconstructing Dinner host Jon Steinman attended.

But how is the media presenting those messages?

Deconstructing Dinner explores the messages coming from industry and Canada's regulatory bodies; it examines research on the pesticide and cancer connections; it digs deep into the care that agricultural migrant workers receive when working within our borders; and it challenges one of the most frequently used arguments -- "Without pesticides, the world would go hungry!"

Check out A Primer on Pesticide Propaganda on Deconstructing Dinner

Resistant weeds; opportunity in a crisis

pigweed


Nature has found a way past the deadly toxin associated with round-up, and from a plant with great diversity and dominance - pigweed has come out in full glory. Its an amazingly hardy plant and some can set 10,000 seeds. Horseweed/Canada fleabane is another resistant weed.

The superweeds are so bad some places they have had to hire hand weeders, or abandon land! And 2-4-D is being used... mixed with round-up, another deadly chemical cocktail. Great.

Monsanto knew that the round-up/gene trait gig would only last so long: it is a short sighted scheme. I can imagine and hope that farmers of GE crops are now furious, file suit and tumble the giant.

Resistance was predicted by scientist and activist alike - a super weed community explosion was inevitable.

Now what? More chemicals, this time deadlier.

We'll be back to good rotations, covercrops and mechanical weeding equipment, as well as small and labour intensive community and urban gardens eventually...why not stimulate that now.

the France24 article: Superweed Explosion threaten monsanto heartland

Resistance not disease; bogus science

Livable futures blog describes the lunacy of some agricultural research in a post about an Op Ed in the NY Times regarding a study of pathogens in free range (324 pigs) vs. confinement pigs (298 pigs) where two free-range pigs were found to carry "the parasite trichinia".

Actually, what they carried was the where-with-all to fight the pathogens naturally - i.e. antibodies. What was also left out of the NY Times piece was that the "research" was paid for by the national pork board.

This is one of a growing waste heap of studies that are unabashedly biased, sloppy and becoming more transparently so. What kind of science is this? The aim is clearly to protect market share, and carry new products to market - they'll find what they need from the studies they pay for.

We are at a cusp now in the very perception of what is safe food.

Why the hyper focus on eradicating pathogenic bacteria "from farm to fork".
Why doesn't the pork board study antibiotics role in assisting to create a super bug? Or the consequences of residual bombardment of antibiotics on our inner family of friendly bacteria?

Having antibodies is a healthy part of being alive. We have many species of bacteria living symbiotically within. This study shows soil bacteria throws off the low down blues, and helps fight allergies.


What about the other urgent aspects of food safety?
Antibiotics in factory meat, hormones in milk, chemical residues, nano transmission, even perhaps slip-ups from engineered phages sprayed on meat or fresh veg.

There is growing public concern for real food safety and the veneer of propaganda is glaring but very thin. Let's use the opportunity to voice our other food safety concerns; I have yet to see discussion of the question of transgenic, chemical or nanoparticle toxicity in the news regarding the food safety bills - are they not mentioned? Where is this discussion?

The real momentum of cause, lobby and money toward food safety appears to be fo traceability. This would entitle government bodies and industry, presumably, insight to what is traveling to our "fork", but without labeling, the consumer would still be in the dark. That is absurdly and profoundly outrageous.

Hat tip to Jill Richardson.





hospital themed restaurant

Epigenetic effects of chemicals (next generation's woes)

Epigenetics is the elephant in the room that industrial agriculture and its network of company science doesn't want to think about (it lurks in on synthetic biology too). Epigenetic effects are "usually taken to encompass changes in the genetic material — the genomic DNA and chromatin — that alter gene expression in a manner that is heritable during somatic cell divisions (and sometimes even in germline transmission)" here

No one really knows how it works, but its possible that what your grandmother ate effects some aspect of your phenotype. And corn belt babies may be passing, immune system disorders and sterility to what could be the last generation.

Many studies are indicating that agriculture chemicals, like Atrazine, are creating effects that don't surface initially, but for the next generation.

"In one study, Dr. Winchester says, baby rats exposed to atrazine, an herbicide that is banned in European countries, were born with no birth defects. But they developed problems including infertility, kidney and prostate problems, cancer and shortened lifespans as adults - and passed them on to their offspring.

That means agrichemicals could have effects for generations to come, he says".

This Globe and Mail article Risks of Birth Defects Linked to Month of Conception (when spraying takes place) describes the similar effects between Altrazine and the chemical bisphenol A, "a plastic-making compound able to act like a female hormone. Not only can it disrupt the hormonal systems of living organisms, but it does so at very low doses."

Devinder Sharma is right to question the short-sightedness of scientic studies in gm crops toxicity as well:

"If this is true of pesticides, I wonder how can the Genetic Engineering Approval Committee (GEAC) be satisfied with the so-called long-term tests done by Mahyco on Bt brinjal. The longest toxicity tests, which are for only 90 days, cannot assess long-term effects like the development of tumours or cancers from genetic modification. No safety can be concluded about Bt Brinjal based on this, and considering the above mentioned study on atrazine exposure in rats, it is obvious that the true impact can only be known when research spans for a few generations."

Some scientific study links

Developmental Immunotoxicity of Atrazine in Rodents

Neuroendocrine and behavioral effects of embryonic exposure to endocrine disrupting chemicals in birds

The Irresponsibility of nanoproduct releases

Burt Bees, "natural product" with nano titanium dioxide.
Natural....right? Safe right?


The consumer product industry has blazed ahead with applications of nanotechnology - they are in the supermarkets right now. There are pathetic gaps in definitions and testing to assure the safety of nanoparticulates that are being foisted, unlabeled, upon us in packaging, in food sprays, in nanoencapsulated nutrients. Where is the controversy? Is protection of the population something the Government has given over to Industry and proving its safety in the courts will become the citizen's recourse? Because its hidden in the slumber of ignorance we don't know what we are eating, wearing or spreading on our bodies. And we may not soon enough.

What is the status of the recommendations from the 2006 The Institute of Food Science & Technology: PDF
"the products of this technology should be considered more deeply by legislative and safety committees. At present, it is considered legal to sell such materials for use in foods, based on the clearance data for the macroscopic material and the level of detail that may form part of any related product purity specification. Furthermore, if food technologists consider that they are simply reformulating foods formed from the same ingredients, then it is unlikely that they will feel obliged to seek new toxicological advice or clearance for the final product. Given that there is no requirement to label foods containing nanoparticles, then consumers are unlikely to be aware of such applications in foods".

"While the regulatory agencies may be making these efforts a little late, because some products are already available and development has been started on many more, we can hope that current discussions will help consumers to benefit from improved and safe food products with a minimum of controversy".

Some groups are attempting to hault the flood of products with nanosilver "filing a legal petition with EPA demanding that the agency use its pesticide regulation authority to stop the sale of numerous consumer products now using nano-sized versions of silver, called nano-silver". Also here.

Should consumers have to battle in the courts, with each dangerous nanosubstance/ nanoparticle? Governments need to stop licensing new products and remove existing ones until such time as their saftey is proven. Why is there no common sense in governance?



Nano particles Without Macroproblems
By Barbara Karn and H. Scott Matthews
Little by little, nanotechnology has crept up on us. From a mostly academic exercise 20 years ago, it has swiftly progressed to the point where the technology is just about everywhere: in fact, there may very well be engineered nanomaterials in the clothes you’re wearing at this very moment. If they were sold to you as wrinkle-free or stainproof, the fibers were almost certainly treated with nanotech processes that stave off stains and creases.
More than 500 products on the market today incorporate some kind of nanotechnology.
Read this article

aluminum nano particles in your chocolate bar?

As I have written elsewhere, the use of nanoparticles are already prevalent in food packaging and some food products in N.A. Regulations seem to be slow to follow the technology in Europe as well. This despite alarming concerns for their safety.

Legislation urged for nano based materials
By Jane Byrne, 23-Jan-2009

Switzerland’s Centre for Technology Assessment (TA-Swiss) has called for the existing legislation on foods and chemicals to be adapted to meet the demands of nanotechnology.

"The Bern-based TA-SWISS, which describes its role as imparting knowledge that is as independent as possible on the repercussions, opportunities and risks of new technologies, has conducted a study into nano packaging materials and food additives already in use in Switzerland.

The report, Nanotechnology in the food sector, concludes that in view of the international flows of goods, global or at least Europe-wide regulation is required in relation to nano-particles in packaging and products. ....

In the form of composite films, wafer-thin nano coatings of aluminium, for example, or aluminium oxide protect snacks or chocolate bars packed in them from oxygen, water vapour and flavour substances. Nanoparticles are also used in polyethylene terephthalate PET bottles, to improve the blocking properties of bottles against oxygen in particular".

More about toxicity of round up

Studies on the toxicity of Glyphosate (and other Monsanto creations like Aspartame) are heavily guided by corporate science in North America. Scientists outside of here are either a little braver or capable of greater independence. I've compiled a collection of some of these studies indicating the toxicity of the chemical soup.

Here is the link to yesterday's post. Glyphosate Formulations Induce Apoptosis and Necrosis in Human Umbilical, Embryonic, and Placental Cells


Cytotoxicity and genotoxicity of human cells exposed in vitro to glyphosate

Monroy CM, Cortés AC, Sicard DM, de Restrepo HG.
Laboratorio de Genética Humana, Universidad de los Andes, Bogotá, D. C., Colombia.
"Several investigations suggest that it can alter various cellular processes in animals...CONCLUSIONS: The levels of cytotoxicity and genotoxicity of glyphosate occurring in mammalian cells suggested that its mechanism of action is not limited to plant cells."

Differential Effects of Glyphosate and Roundup on Human Placental Cells and Aromatase
"Some agricultural workers using glyphosate have pregnancy problems, but its mechanism of action in mammals is questioned. Here we show that glyphosate is toxic to human placental JEG3 cells within 18 hr with concentrations lower than those found with agricultural use.."

2007: Martínez Adriano; Reyes Ismael; Reyes Niradiz
[Cytotoxicity of the herbicide glyphosate in human peripheral blood mononuclear cells]
"This in vitro study confirmed the toxic effects on human cells by glyphosate and its commercial preparations. Commercial formulations were more cytotoxic than the active component alone, supporting the concept that additives in commercial formulations play a role in the toxicity attributed to glyphosate-based herbicides".


Time- and Dose-Dependent Effects of Roundup on Human Embryonic and Placental Cells
"The cytotoxic, and potentially endocrine-disrupting effects of Roundup are thus amplified with time. Taken together, these data suggest that Roundup exposure may affect human reproduction and fetal development in case of contamination. Chemical mixtures in formulations appear to be underestimated regarding their toxic or hormonal impact...
...the herbicide Roundup, as sold on the market, is far more toxic than the product which is known and approved to be its active ingredient: glyphosate".

And More:
Toxicity in sperm

Glyphosate Formulations Induce Apoptosis and Necrosis in Human Umbilical, Embryonic, and Placental Cells

New study on Round-up toxicity

Glyphosate Formulations Induce Apoptosis and Necrosis in Human Umbilical, Embryonic, and Placental Cells

Nora Benachour and Gilles-Eric Séralini*
University of Caen, Laboratory Estrogens and Reproduction, UPRES EA 2608, Institute of Biology, Caen 14032, France
Chem. Res. Toxicol., 2009, 22 (1), pp 97–105
DOI: 10.1021/tx800218n
Publication Date (Web): December 23, 2008
Copyright © 2008 American Chemical Society



We have evaluated the toxicity of four glyphosate (G)-based herbicides in Roundup (R) formulations, from 105 times dilutions, on three different human cell types. This dilution level is far below agricultural recommendations and corresponds to low levels of residues in food or feed. The formulations have been compared to G alone and with its main metabolite AMPA or with one known adjuvant of R formulations, POEA. HUVEC primary neonate umbilical cord vein cells have been tested with 293 embryonic kidney and JEG3 placental cell lines. All R formulations cause total cell death within 24 h, through an inhibition of the mitochondrial succinate dehydrogenase activity, and necrosis, by release of cytosolic adenylate kinase measuring membrane damage. They also induce apoptosis via activation of enzymatic caspases 3/7 activity. This is confirmed by characteristic DNA fragmentation, nuclear shrinkage (pyknosis), and nuclear fragmentation (karyorrhexis), which is demonstrated by DAPI in apoptotic round cells. G provokes only apoptosis, and HUVEC are 100 times more sensitive overall at this level. The deleterious effects are not proportional to G concentrations but rather depend on the nature of the adjuvants. AMPA and POEA separately and synergistically damage cell membranes like R but at different concentrations. Their mixtures are generally even more harmful with G. In conclusion, the R adjuvants like POEA change human cell permeability and amplify toxicity induced already by G, through apoptosis and necrosis. The real threshold of G toxicity must take into account the presence of adjuvants but also G metabolism and time-amplified effects or bioaccumulation. This should be discussed when analyzing the in vivo toxic actions of R. This work clearly confirms that the adjuvants in Roundup formulations are not inert. Moreover, the proprietary mixtures available on the market could cause cell damage and even death around residual levels to be expected, especially in food and feed derived from R formulation-treated crops.

See http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/tx800218n

Mars Inc and Seeds of Change.

Seeds of Change (in case I'm not the only one that didn't know) is owned by Mars Inc. the largest Candy Corporation in the world now that Birkshire's Warren Buffet has helped finance the scoop up of Wriggly's.
One of the largest privately owned Corporations, the Mars family is reclusive and worth tens of Billions. I'll have to find my purple dragon carrots elsewhere, as I won't support Mars Inc. and their appalling chocolate trade, exploitation of southern hemisphere farmers and the pushing of the nanofood front. They have pioneered nanotechnology in packaging and sensors:
"Nanotechnology will dramatically extend food shelf life. Mars Inc. already has a patent on an invisible, edible, nano wrapper which will envelope foods, preventing gas and moisture exchange. ‘Smart’ packaging (containing nano-sensors and anti-microbial activators) is being developed that will be capable of detecting food spoilage and releasing nano-anti-microbes to extend food shelf life, enabling supermarkets to keep food for even greater periods before its sale. Nano-sensors, embedded into food products as tiny chips that were invisible to the human eye, would also act as electronic barcodes. They would emit a signal that would allow food, including fresh food, to be tracked from paddock to factory to supermarket and beyond." see Nano foe

They also have patents on nano material additives for food flavour enhancement and preservation.

"Mars Inc. US Patent US5741505 nanoscale inorganic coatings: Inorganic nano-coating applied directly to a food product to provide moisture or oxygen barrier to
improve shelf life and/or flavour impact. Coating materials include permitted additives silicon dioxide (E551), magnesium oxide (MgO, E530) and titanium
dioxide (E171). Applications include hard sugar confectionery, ready-to-eat cereals, biscuits, crisps" see

Note: these metalic nanomaterials are used for sensors as well as antimicrobials and studies have shown that they are toxic.

EU poised to ban pesticides

The European Parliament has voted to tighten rules on pesticide use and ban at least 22 chemicals deemed harmful to human health.
The UK government, the Conservatives and the National Farmers' Union all oppose the new rules, saying they could hit yields and increase food prices.
The rules have not yet been approved by the 27 member states' governments.
The draft law would ban substances that can cause cancer or that can harm human reproduction or hormones.
UK farmers say the law would "seriously threaten" UK food production. It could wipe out the carrot industry and seriously affect many other crops, the National Farmers' Union has warned. more

video

Why there are no pesticide sniffing dogs

Cartoon from Kootenay Co-op Radio's Deconstructing Dinner

Stone Cold Soup

What do you get when you combine a bunch of common "acceptable" pesticides: certain death.
Thats the result of a study that offers the "first illustration of how a large mixture of pesticides can adversely impact the environment".
I've often wondered about chemical combinations and if they've been studied appropriately. What effect has the chemical soup? I wasn't surprised then to find this new research out of the University of Pittsburgh showing that when 10 of the most commonly used EPA approved pesticides are mixed together they can wipe out (99%) of the amphibian population.
Pesticides are toxically complex chemicals and synthesize or metabolize into other chemicals after application in the soil, or uptake into organisms. The common pesticide Cyromazine, used on leafy greens, for example metabolizes into Melamine among other things. The USDA has apparently axed pesticide testing of fruits, vegetables and field crops as of September of this year citing the 8 million budget as too expensive. The EPA used the data that these tests revealed to set limits on pesticide use.
I'm not clear if and how Canada's testing regime is monitoring our own food for chemical residues - there are a lot of agency hands in the pie, but with deep integration in full gear, I'd wager more of the same. In the 15 + years I've been farming no one has ever required my produce to be tested for chemicals, nor do I know of any collegues organic or otherwise, wholesalers or smallscale. The powers that be are becoming increasingly heavy-handed though with small-scale producers in regard to regulations for food-safety which has come to mean antibacterial control while they deregulate the agricultural chemical industry.

Melamine in our own front yards and chickens

Driving home today down the valley past the closed farm gate shops and combined GMO corn fields, past the strawberry fields all covered with remay, fabric fields ghostly against the next all tufty rust and black. Then through the towns with clear bags of leaves under the ancient oaks on the curb tempting for the empty dodge.... but what else is in them? Perhaps melamine. Excess nitrogen fertilizer raked up and bagged with the lushous leaf mold and in the grassy cling-ons. Nitrogen fertilizer doped with Melamine. You can see it apparently too on the black soil surface, as a white salty substance.

There are no chickens running freerange through these ample fall fields. They are strangely quiet. Chickens roost somehow somewhere else, like in the mega barns humming dusty feathers. And these chickens? Are they tested for Melamine?