Obama Gives Key Agriculture Post to Monsanto Man
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=RUS20100405&articleId=18499

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Monsanto_and_the_Roundup_Ready_Controversy

“Remarkably “the USDA has announced it will completely eliminate the program [that tracks pesticide and herbicide use in agriculture] in 2008, due to budget cuts, and won’t be collecting any data…. Benbrook finds the USDA’s actions curious at a time when herbicide use on Roundup Ready crops has increased: ‘The 2007 data would have shown an enormous increase in the pounds of herbicides applied on Roundup Ready crops, especially soybeans. The farm media has been full of stories over the past few years of the problems farmers are facing as weeds become resistant to Glyphosate and other herbicides. I find it curious that at the time of peak interest and need for solid information on pesticide use in soybeans that the Department of Agriculture has decided to stop collecting the data. I wouldn’t be surprised if there was some quiet lobbying done by Monsanto to let the program lapse’” [35]. Interestingly “the Agriculture Department is looking into purchasing that information for use in policymaking, but the data would likely not be made public” [36].”

Huh? Round-up Ready corn doesn’t incorporate any pesticide, it makes the plant non-susceptible to glycophosphate herbicides (i.e. Round-up and Rodeo) so you can use herbicide without killing the plant you want to grow.

It really seems as if you assume that anything that mainstream industry produces or markets to you is safe and anything “organic” or sustainable is suspect. You seem quite unwilling to accept and acknowledge the reality that it’s the mainstream food industry that promotes and, yes, mainstreams exaggerated claims about food (organic or otherwise), that pushes super/miracle foods and drives the mainstreaming of food trends (and has whole departments dedicated to doing this). You also seem to question the safety of “organic” practices yet have absolutely no doubts about factory farming and the mainstream food industry.

The reality is that I can actually ask my farmer what he uses on his crops and with his animals, I can even visit the farm to see for myself. On the other hand, anything I buy in a supermarket is a mystery in terms of where it comes from and what has been done to it (be it labelled organic or not).

http://www.biolsci.org/v05p0706.htm

And a good look at the analysis with a more skeptical eye that is neither pro nor anti GMOs (or at least makes a distinction between diferent kinds of GMOs)…

http://thelastpsychiatrist.com/2010/01/is_genetically_modified_food_s.html

Sadly, the ultra-pasteurization process also makes it very difficult to froth the milk. The reason why this latte drinker buys standard milk for myself.

I have no idea how raw milk froths…since I have had food poisoning enough times to forgo an obvious risk.

I have to say, if I were to compare my concern regarding using antibiotics to promote growth and as a prophylaxis for infection in dairy farming to my concern over the use of homeopathic medicines in dairy farming I would rate the antibiotic concern much higher. Maybe that is only because both my brother and sister and a neighbor have all been hospitalized with MRSA.

As far as I understand, organic farmers have to abide by USDA standards as conventional farmers do. So any concern over what non-traditional remedies are being used would be equal for organic or conventional dairy. Of course if someone is aware of a farmer who is not in compliance with USDA standards, I suppose they could report them.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304370304575151663770115120.html?mod=WSJ_hpp_MIDDLENexttoWhatsNewsFifth

WSJ
MARCH 30, 2010
A Clash Over Unpasteurized Milk Gets Raw
FDA Cites Risks of Drinking Unprocessed Dairy Products Despite Advocates’ Claims of Improved Taste and Nutrition

“At the Grassfields farm in Coopersville, Mich., where 150 families belong to a cow-sharing program called Green Pastures, the farm is inspected by the state regularly, according to Betsy Meerman, whose family owns the farm. The farm also sends raw milk samples monthly for lab tests, and Ms. Meerman says there has never been a positive result for four types of bacteria. Cows are checked weekly for mastitis, an infection of the mammary glands that FDA officials say can also cause the spread of bacteria to milk. The Green Pastures Web site says it treats infections when they occur with ‘herbs, homeopathy, tinctures, prayer and vitamins.’”

If you go to the farm’s site and look at the question page, you can read it for yourself.

I hope that anyone reading this who buys food from small farmers because they believe that the products are better for themselves, the farm animals and the environment at the very least realizes the need to question the people they buy from about what exactly they use and don’t use.

That sounds like it might be the one.

It does involve Monsanto’s GM corn and rats and possible signs of renal/kidney damage.

Rodale’s article said that

“+ Genetically modified organisms have never been tested on humans, and now results from animal studies are showing kidney and liver failure. In a recent study in the International Journal of Biological Science, rats that ate a diet of genetically modified corn (which we ingest in large doses every day) had internal damage to their organs, especially the liver and kidneys. ”

I think I saw a statement about prying the results loose from Monsanto, but that may have been in the HuffPo.

Fifi, I had a theory that I attempted to test. My theory was that the reason that you and several others exhibited such a strong dislike for Dr. Tuteur was because you sensed that she did not share your views about organic farming and food and environmentalism and that you attacked Dr. Hall in this thread in the same manner in which you attacked Dr. T because you suspected that she shared Dr. T’s views.

Please note: I have no idea what Dr. H or Dr. T’s views on the topics are.

Now if anyone really cares about what I believe, weing stated it best when he said, “I also think that it’s just as weird to think that organically farmed food is automatically good and corporate farmed or genetically modified food is automatically bad.”

Séralini, G., Cellier, D., & Vendomois, J. S. (2007). New Analysis of a Rat Feeding Study with a Genetically Modified Maize Reveals Signs of Hepatorenal Toxicity. Archives of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology, 52(4), 596 – 602.

“Health risk assessment of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) cultivated for food or feed is under debate throughout the world, and very little data have been published on mid- or long-term toxicological studies with mammals. One of these studies performed under the responsibility of Monsanto Company with a transgenic corn MON863 has been subjected to questions from regulatory reviewers in Europe, where it was finally approved in 2005. This necessitated a new assessment of kidney pathological findings, and the results remained controversial. An Appeal Court action in Germany (Münster) allowed public access in June 2005 to all the crude data from this 90-day rat-feeding study. We independently re-analyzed these data. Appropriate statistics were added, such as a multivariate analysis of the growth curves, and for biochemical parameters comparisons between GMO-treated rats and the controls fed with an equivalent normal diet, and separately with six reference diets with different compositions. We observed that after the consumption of MON863, rats showed slight but dose-related significant variations in growth for both sexes, resulting in 3.3% decrease in weight for males and 3.7% increase for females. Chemistry measurements reveal signs of hepatorenal toxicity, marked also by differential sensitivities in males and females. Triglycerides increased by 24–40% in females (either at week 14, dose 11% or at week 5, dose 33%, respectively); urine phosphorus and sodium excretions diminished in males by 31–35% (week 14, dose 33%) for the most important results significantly linked to the treatment in comparison to seven diets tested. Longer experiments are essential in order to indicate the real nature and extent of the possible pathology; with the present data it cannot be concluded that GM corn MON863 is a safe product.”

From the BioFortified website, here is a little photo article on a recent organic food conference in Wisconsin:

http://www.biofortified.org/2010/03/frank-at-moses/

Short on facts and discussion, but the photos are fun.

On the fawning advocacy side, my email recently turned up a link to this article from Maria Rodale:

http://www.menshealth.com/men/nutrition/food-for-fitness/organic-food/article/fab147b24b037210vgnvcm10000030281eac/7

There were a few studies mentioned, but no links to check out, and a lot of “may help with this, may reduce that”.

When I tried to check out a rat study on Monsanto’s genetically modified corn, it lead me to that shining beacon of veracity and perspicacity, the Huffington Post !?!?!

Does anyone know anything more about the gm corn study?

I thought I had read about it a little while ago, but didn’t find anything quickly.

I guess I’ll have to do some more digging.

“There is no reason to think that organic foods would have fewer nutrients than industrially produced foods, and there are many reasons to think that organics have greater benefits for the environment, for pesticide reduction, and for taste, all of which affect human health at least as much — or more — than minor differences in nutritional content. I buy organics because I want foods to be produced more naturally, more humanely, and more sustainably. I see plenty of good reasons to buy organics and this study does not even begin to address them.”

http://www.thedailygreen.com/healthy-eating/blogs/healthy-food/organic-food-nutrition-47073102

This is actually done across the board by Big Food – it has nothing to do with “Organic”. Big Food makes all kinds of exaggerate health claims for all kinds of products and is actually the main player in mainstreaming these ideas (since they market to the mainstream – the other big player is mainstream beauty products that tend to put the “magic” natural ingredient du jour in their product and promote it on the basis of that additive).

Dairy boards and the marketing bodies of certain segments of the food/farming industry – often ones that are heavily subsidized by goverment – are also very prone to making exaggerated health claims for their products (or even marketing directly to segment of the population that their product is generally not healthy for – such as promoting milk to segments of the population that are statistically prone to being lactose intolerant, for instance). To try to hang this kind of behavior on “Organic” and ignoring the very ample evidence of how Big Food does this across the board is ignoring reality. (And a bit odd considering that you tried to use a critic of Big Food, Marion Nestle, prove your point about the corruption of organic standards by ignoring what her actual critiques of Big Food are!)

I guess you mean this section of the report (excepts)
Mexico and Central America

“The first of the demonstration projects, which began in 2003, has been coordinated by the Pan American Health Organization of the WHO in partnership with a wide range of bodies including UNEP, the Commission for Environmental Cooperation, and the eight country governments.

It has involved the Ministries of Health of Belize, Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Mexico, Nicaragua and Panama where DDT has been extensively sprayed in homes and onto water bodies in the region order to combat malaria since the 1950s.

More than 89 million people in Mesoamerica live in areas suitable for malaria transmission of which over a third or 23.5 million live in highly endemic areas.”

“The work covered close to 160 000 people directly and an estimated 6.8 million indirectly representing nearly 30 per cent of those in the highly effected areas.”

“The project achieved a 63 per cent reduction in malaria cases and a more than 86 per cent cut in ones linked with Plasmodium falciparum, the malarial parasite that causes the most severe kind of infection and the highest death rate globally.”

“Projects are now going global with several new, five year regional demonstrations of sustainable alternatives to DDT launched, or set to be launched over the next 12 months.”

To me characterizing this extremely large scale project as a “study” is inaccurate. This was not a preliminary study of say 2000 people. As to the results being taken as “conclusive”, I have not problem with WHO taking the information they have gained from projects that “160 000 people directly and an estimated 6.8 million indirectly” and achieved a 63% reduction in malaria cases over the previous DDT program being rolled out into other populations over 5 years.

This is what I expect from science, medicine and public health and I think it is highly inaccurate to equate it to CAM or even Organic farming. The medical aspects of the program are conventional medicine and the mosquito control aspects incorporate the use of non-DDT synthetic chemicals.

Interestingly, I’ve learned most of what I know about the toxicity and dangers of “natural” insecticides from people who grow organically themselves. For instance, neem oil is an apicide – which is obviously not good for farming of any kind or the environment even though it’s marketed as being a “safe” choice.

I don’t think GMO foods are automatically bad. However, the kinds of tactics Monsanto has employed to try to dominate and manipulate seed banks and so on are pretty unethical. (And certainly a lot of the condemnation has come from farmers that aren’t using organic methods but just want to be able to save seed for the next season. Or not be sued for copyright infringement when the wind blows GM seeds into their fields.) The problem with GMOs is that once they’re released into the wild, they’re not longer controllable and there simply hasn’t been enough research done on the consequences. (And there seems to be increasing evidence that the RR variety of GMOs simply create weeds that are more resistant to herbicides.) They’re the cane toads or antibiotics of our time in many ways.

Industries like to pretend that they’re pro-science simply because they use science, this obviously isn’t the case and conflating the two is a PR (and political) strategy that often results in the degradation of real science. Gaming the results of research is promoting pseudoscience no matter who’s doing it. And pretending that everyone who’s interested in sustainability or criticl of industry is anti-science is just silly.

I find it interesting that you seem to want to deny the political, commercial and PR machinations of the major corporate players in the food industry (which does indeed also include some promoters of CAM and organic like Whole Foods) and companies like Monstanto yet used the information gathered and arguments by Marion Nestle whose whole focus is on calling out Big Food on their dishonesty and politcal machinations! It strikes me as being like wanting to call out Big sCAM while giving Big Pharma a pass – they’re both industries and they both act like industries and big corporations. Do you trust corporations to be acting in your best interest?

Just as many of the lies about food – and exaggerated health claims – are about non-organic products as they are about organic. The mainstream is perpetuating these ideas and inserting them in the mainstream market as much as, if not much more, than small, local, organic farmers that are essentially just running family farms. Family farms – organic or not – have been the major losers in the corporate take-over of all food production. It seems like you want to put all responsibilty for the lies of the food industry at the door of small farmers. Maybe this isn’t your intention but that’s how it’s coming off.

Me? I’ll take my locally grown organic tomatoes that ship poorly and haven’t been refrigerated over the crappy supermarket version any day. That, of course, is a matter of taste and choice.