Pesticide Industry Backed Opponents of GMO Labeling Get Criminal in California

The $36 million No on 37 campaign, bankrolled by $20 million from the world's six largest pesticide companies, has been caught in yet another lie, this time possibly criminal.

These companies and their allies in the junk food industry know that their profit margins may suffer if consumers have a choice whether to purchase genetically engineered foods or not.  And that's why opponents are spending nearly a million dollars per day trying to make Prop 37 complicated. But really it's simple - we have the right to know what's in our food.

To date, the No on 37 campaign has been able to repeat one lie after another with near impunity. But has this pattern of deceit finally caught up to it?

Yesterday, the Yes on 37 campaign sent letters to the U.S. Department of Justice requesting a criminal investigation of the No on 37 campaign for possible fraudulent misuse of the official seal of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA).  

The No on 37 campaign affixed the FDA's seal to one of the campaign's mailers. Section 506 of the U.S. Criminal Code states: "Whoever...knowingly uses, affixes, or impresses any such fraudulently made, forged, counterfeited, mutilated, or altered seal or facsimile thereof to or upon any certificate, instrument, commission, document, or paper of any description...shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both."

The letter also provides evidence that the No on 37 campaign falsely attributed a direct quote to the FDA in the campaign mailer. Alongside the FDA seal, the mailer includes this text in quotes. "The US Food and Drug Administration says a labeling policy like Prop 37 would be 'inherently misleading." The quote is entirely fabricated. The FDA did not make this statement and does not take a position on Prop 37.

In addition, the three identified authors of the "Rebuttal to Argument in Favor of Proposition 37" include a Dr. Henry I. Miller, who is identified solely as "Founding Director, Office of Biotechnology of the Food & Drug Administration." Dr. Miller in fact, does not currently work for the FDA in any capacity - as millions of California voters have been erroneously led to believe.

This is not the first blatant act of deception that the No on 37 campaign has been caught perpetrating on the citizens of California - particularly relating to their "top scientist" Dr. Henry Miller.

Consider Miller's growing "rap sheet":

• On Oct. 4 the No on 37 campaign was forced to pull its first ad off the air and re-shoot it after they were caught misrepresenting Miller as a doctor at Stanford University  when he is actually a researcher at the Hoover Institute on Stanford's campus, as the Los Angeles Times reported.
• Last week, the campaign was reprimanded by Stanford again for misrepresenting the university in a mailer that went out to millions of voters. And this week, the campaign was caught sending out yet another deceptive mailer involving the University.

In addition to allowing his university affiliation to be repeatedly overblown, Miller has a sordid history of parroting the talking points of some of the world's most notorious corporate bad actors: he's a founding member of a now defunct tobacco front group that tried to discredit the links between cigarettes and cancer, he's repeatedly called for the reintroduction of DDT - known to cause premature birth, fronted for an oil industry funded climate change denial group for Exxon, claimed that people exposed to radiation from the Fukushima nuclear power plant disaster "may have benefited from it", and attacked the US Food and Drug Administration's efforts to ensure proper vetting and testing of new drugs safety while urging it to outsource more of its functions to private industries.

This is the man the No on 37 campaign has portrayed to voters as an arbiter of good science and promoted as an expert worthy of our trust. In reality, Miller is nothing more than a corporate shill that will say whatever his paymasters ask him to, be it Exxon, Phillip Morris, Monsanto, or DuPont.

Does the No on 37 campaign stand behind Miller's fringe views on tobacco, climate change, nuclear radiation and DDT?

But this pattern of deceit doesn't end with Miller:

• On Oct. 5, the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics, the nation's largest professional association for nutritionists and dieticians, accused the No on 37 campaign of misrepresenting its position and misleading voters in the official California Voter's Guide that went to 11 million voters.
• And the anti-Proposition 37 ads that are now blanketing the state have been described as misleading by the San Jose Mercury News, Sacramento Bee, and San Francisco Chronicle.

Perhaps these latest revelations will prompt the mainstream press to begin focusing their attention on the No on 37 campaign's pattern of deceptions - including a potentially criminal act - rather than on easily discredited pesticide industry Prop 37 "red herrings" like common sense exemptions, phony lawsuit scares, bogus "big bureaucracy claims", and "cost increase hysteria".

So who should we trust?

Who should we trust when it comes to our right to know what's in the food we eat: Monsanto, DuPont, and Henry Miller or the millions of California consumers and leading consumer, health, women's, faith-based, labor and other groups; 61 countries that already require GMO labeling; and a growing stack of peer-reviewed research linking genetically engineered foods to health and environmental problems?

Who has our best interests at heart, the pesticide and junk food industry, or Prop 37 supporters like Consumers Union, California Nurses Association, California Democratic Party, California Labor Federation, United Farm Workers, American Public Health Association, Consumers Union, Sierra Club, Whole Foods Market, California Council of Churches, Organic Consumers Association, Center for Food Safety, Consumer Federation of America, Public Citizen, and Food Democracy Now!?

http://www.commondreams.org/view/2012/10/19

Tom Philpott - Some GMO Cheerleaders Also Deny Climate Change

"GMO Opponents Are the Climate Skeptics of the Left," declares the headline of a recent piece by Keith Kloor in Slate. The argument goes like this: Just as certain conservative writers flout science by denying the urgency of climate change, there are progressive writers—he named me as a prominent example—who defy an alleged scientific consensus by criticizing the genetically modified crop industry. We're hypocrites, the charge goes, because we thunder against the denial of good science when it comes to climate, but indulge in denialism when it comes to GMOs.

I think Kloor's critique is nonsense. Sure, there are wackos who campaign against GMOs, but not all GMO critique is wacko. In a 2009 roundtable in Seed Magazine, I debunked the idea that there's a scientific consensus around GMOs analogous to the one around climate. 

Read More:

http://www.motherjones.com/tom-philpott/2012/10/gmo-climate-change-science

GM Wheat May Damage Human Genetics Permanently

The Australian government, in the form of its science research arm, is joining Agribusiness profiteering by designing a GM wheat that could kill people who eat it & be inherited by their children.

by Heidi Stevenson

We have not yet seen the worst damage that genetic engineering may do. Australia's governmental agency, Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO), is developing a wheat species that is engineered to turn off genes permanently.

Professor Jack Heinemann at the University of Canterbury's Centre for Integrated Research in Biosafety  has studied the wheat's potential. Digital Journal reports that he says¹:

What we found is that the molecules created in this wheat, intended to silence wheat genes, can match human genes, and through ingestion, these molecules can enter human beings and potentially silence our genes. The findings are absolutely assured. There is no doubt that these matches exist.

The implications are clarified by Professor Judy Carman of Flinders University:

If this silences the same gene in us that it silences in the wheat—well, children who are born with this enzyme not working tend to die by the age of about five.

Silencing the equivalent gene in humans that is silenced in this genetically modified wheat holds the potential of killing people. But it gets worse. Silenced genes are permanently silenced and can be passed down the generations.

Silenced Genes

The wheat genes involved are called SEI. The specific sequences of those genes are being termed classified confidential information. CSIRO, which is part of the Australian government, is developing a commercial application, but refuses to divulge the information that's most significant to the people of Australia! The government is apparently more interested in profits than in the people's safety.

Dr. Heinemann was asked to provide his opinion of CSIRO's genetic engineering on wheat plants and produced the report "Evaluation of risks from creation of novel RNA molecules in genetically engineered wheat plants and recommendations for risk assessment"². He discusses the nature of the genetic entities that are being played with and explains how they can affect human health.

RNA is similar to DNA, which is the molecule that carries genetic inheritance. There are several types of RNA, but a particular group called double stranded RNA (dsRNA) is of concern. Heinemann writes:

dsRNAs are remarkably stable in the environment. Insects and worms that feed on plants that make dsRNA can take in the dsRNA through their digestive system, where it remains intact.

He delineates research documenting that once dsRNA is taken through an animal's skin or digestive tract, it can wreak havoc. It circulates throughout the body and has been known to be amplified or cause a secondary reaction that:

... leads to more and different dsRNAs ("secondary" dsRNAs) with unpredictable targets.

Heinemann points out that a silencing effect on a gene, once initiated, can be inherited. Though it's known to happen, little is yet known about the process.

dsRNA is known to be a tough molecule. It survives readily, even through digestion. Worse, though, it's known to pass into the body through digestion. Then, as Dr. Heinemann writes:

Once taken up, the dsRNA can circulate throughout the body and alter gene expression in  the animal.

That is, gene expression can be altered as the result of eating a food with dsRNA altered by genetic engineering. Judy Carman, of Flinders University, who also provided an expert opinion, wrote in "Expert Scientific Opinion on CSIRO GM Wheat Varieties"³:

In fact, employees from the world's largest GM company, Monsanto, have written at least one paper about how to commercially exploit the fact that dsRNA survives digestion in insects, in their attempts to try to control insect pests of plants. That is, the plant is genetically engineered to produce a dsRNA, which insects ingest when they eat the plant; the dsRNA survives digestion in the insect and then silences genes in the insect to stunt its growth and kill it.

There can be no question that dsRNA can be transferred to humans by eating.

The Risks

Heinemann makes these three points:

1. Plant-derived microRNA [a type of dsRNA] precursors have been detected in human blood, thus demonstrating that they can survive the human digestive tract and be passed into the body through it. He emphasizes: "There is strong evidence that siRNAs [a type of dsRNA and the one of particular concern here] produced in the wheat will transfer to humans through food."
2. dsRNA that have been shown to transmit to humans through food have also been shown to survive cooking! He points out: "There is strong evidence that siRNAs produced in the wheat will remain in a form that can transmit to humans even when the wheat has been cooked or processed for use in food."
3. Plant-derived dsRNA was able to silence a human gene in cultured cells. He wrote: "There is strong evidence that once transmitted, siRNA produced in wheat would have the biological capacity to cause an effect."

Judy Carman states succintly:

As a result, there is a chain of evidence to show that there is a risk that the dsRNA from this GM wheat may survive digestion, enter the tissues of people that eat it and silence a gene or genes in those people. There is also evidence that any genetic changes so produced may be stable and become established in many cells of an organ. Furthermore, there a possibility that these changes may be passed-on to future generations.

The wheat genes involved are called SEI. They have extensive similarities with the human GBE gene, which controls glycogen storage. If the GBE gene is defective, it leads to certain death from liver cirrhosis at a very young age. Another defect in the gene results in adult polyglucosan body disease (APBD) in adults over age 40, causing cognitive impairment, pyramidal quadriplegia, peripheral neuropathy, and neurogenic bladder.

Dr. Heinemann investigated and found that sections of the two genes, SEI and GBE, are a perfect match. Because CSIRO is saying that the specific SEI sequence that's modified is classified confidential information, we cannot know for certain what harm might be done to humans. However, it's obvious that shutting down a section of the GBE gene holds the potential of death—yet, Heinemann showed that it's not only possible, it's likely!

Lack of Adequate Risk Assessment

Judy Carman focused more on the lack of appropriate or adequate risk assessment for the modified wheat. She is very concerned that no consideration was given to checking for:

• Whether there are adverse effects on animals or humans who eat it.
• Whether there is any uptake of dsRNA in animals or humans who eat it.
• Silencing of genes in animals or people.
• Silencing of the branching enzyme.
• Toxic effects, such as damage to the liver, kidneys, or any other organ.
• Increase in reproductive problems.
• Whether dsRNA changes are inherited.
• Increased risk of cancer.
• Increased risk of wheat allergies

She is very concerned that the oversight agency, the Office of the Gene Technology Regulator (OGTR), and CSIRO "appear not to be looking for any adverse effects in people, but intend to go directly to look for any benefits." She concludes:

It appears that neither organisation has appreciated or properly safety assessed this wheat in the light of the fact that the dsRNA produced in these GM wheat varieties may survive digestion, enter the tissues of the body and silence a gene or genes in the recipient. It also appears that neither organisation has "joined the dots" to appreciate that, of all the genes that could be silenced, the most likely one is a similar branching enzyme in animals and people and that silencing it could seriously impair or even kill those that eat it.

The Australian government appears to have become nothing more than another Agribusiness corporate entity. They're using the people's money to fund a massive profit-making venture in genetic engineering without any consideration for the potential harm that may be done to either the environment or the welfare of the people. Not only are they willing to risk mass deaths from products they're hoping to put on the market, they also seem to have no concern for whether they might be doing permanent damage to generations that follow.

---

Resources

1. Scientists: New GMO wheat may 'silence' vital human genes
2. Evaluation of risks from creation of novel RNA molecules in genetically engineered wheat plants and recommendations for risk assessment
3. Expert Scientific Opinion on CSIRO GM Wheat Varieties
4. CSIRO SEI/SEII SHRNA GM WHEAT FOR PRODUCING GRAINS WITH A LOWER 
   CONTENT OF BRANCHED STARCH MOLECULES, Appraisal of statements by Prof Jack Heinemann and Assoc Prof Judy Carman
5. The GMOs, nature and effect of the genetic modification
6. GBE Antibodies

http://www.greenmedinfo.com/blog/gm-wheat-may-damage-human-genetics-permanently

Mr. President: Earth Does Not Have Forever

Listening to the US Presidential election, you wouldn't know Earth faces ecological emergencies including abrupt climate change and ecosystem collapse in water, forests, and food. The United States and world are less free, green and peaceful places – largely because human growth has met ecological limits. Ongoing rollbacks of human rights and civil liberties, as well as the state of perma-war waged by drones terrorizing entire populations, is a direct result of environmental decline caused by industrial growth and the resulting scramble for oil and other resources in a globalized world.

The human family faces its greatest planetary emergency ever as Earth, humanity and all life are poised upon the precipice of total ecological, social and economic collapse. Earth's biosphere – the thin mantle of life from underground, through terrestrial ecosystems, to the top of the atmosphere – is being destroyed. Fisheries, soils, the atmosphere, forests, wetlands, water, oceans, food and other ecosystems are uniformly in decline or simply gone. Global ecological crises are destroying conditions necessary for a habitable Earth, and our descent into resource anarchy has begun.

Global change and ecological science are clear that we are near or have surpassed planetary boundaries required to maintain a livable Earth. We know with certainty that endless growth on a finite planet is impossible. Humanity powers down, abandons growth for a steady state economy, learns to live more simply – but well – and share, or the existence of all life, including our own, is threatened.

Nowhere is the utter failure of leadership on issues related to ecological sustainability more apparent than in this year's U.S. Presidential election. Drought, enhanced by abrupt climate change, has spread to 2/3 of America - threatening national and global food supplies. Where are Romney's and Obama's urgent climate change policies? And the deep insight that such rapid ecological change dramatically affects national and global security, and must be urgently and adequately addressed at once?

Lack of action on abrupt climate change is stunning. The past year's extreme weather illustrates the United States clearly faces runaway climate change and drought-caused famine – yet political and economic elite, as well as many of their fellow citizens, are too ignorant and entitled to acknowledge it and act. The US economic and political elite – by refusing to address disturbingly rapid climate change and environmental decline – have in effect abdicated.

As ecosystems collapse and abrupt climate change intensifies, the U.S. political establishment isn't even trying to put forth sustainable development and ecosystem protection policies. There is nothing exceptional to be found in such greedy, superstitious and self-obsessed environmental negligence for a percentage or two in economic growth followed by collapse. Humanity will shed many tears, bleed profusely, and die an ignoble death, from such myopic hubris.

Republicans are unabashedly ecocidal – willfully destroying ecosystems until death – and deny established ecological science. Romney's policies are a road map to abrupt climate change and ecosystem loss – and also assured further declines in justice, liberty, and equity. Economic growth based upon destroying ecosystems for temporary jobs – which is often the case, particularly with fossil fuel exploitation – is not development or advancement of any kind, as post-boom local peoples are hard pressed to survive on devastated landscapes.

Democrats spout the rhetoric of climate change science and ecological concern, and then do big business's bidding destroying ecosystems. President Obama has tepidly dished up failed progressive green hope, promising when elected to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, yet until recently he has been unable to utter the words "climate change". Long-term fuel efficiency standards do not a sufficient climate change policy make. The Obama administration continues to obstruct international climate talks, and has been backing off commitments to mandatory emission reductions, and the 2-degree limit for warming. President Obama's continued gutting of civil liberties, and undeclared perma-war using drones, including assassinating U.S. citizens without trial, is deeply troubling as well.

It's unconscionable that abrupt climate change, ecosystem collapse, record inequity and the rollback of civil liberties are being ignored politically. To ridicule global ecological collapse is pure evil ignorance – yet, to respond that what science indicates is a global ecological emergency is "not a hoax", is also dangerously inadequate. We need detailed plans now from both candidates to dramatically reduce emissions and loss of intact ecosystems if Earth is to remain habitable.

Every day these crises remain unacknowledged and unaddressed – the entire human family and all life is closer to famine, mass death, and potentially the end of being. Ecological sustainability is not going to come from oil addicted Mitt or his party – who have long doubled down on perma-war and ecocide – so there is only the President to look to for leadership to sustain national and global ecology and peace. But Mr. Obama needs to earn our independent, progressive green votes, with specific and sufficient policy proposals that we have not yet heard.

The world does not have forever: either President Obama leads on climate change, civil liberties, and ending perma-war, or else on the big issues of survival and living well long-term, he is little different from Romney. Silence in the midst of a climate change emergency – during election season or not – is not leadership.

President Obama's lack of a detailed climate change policy - and his poor record on necessary environmental policies in general - matter a great deal. Unless he presents ambitious proposals in the closing weeks of the campaign to address abrupt climate change, restore civil liberties, and end drone perma-war, he is not worthy of progressive green support.

It may be better for greens to spend time in opposition, with clear diametrically opposite Romney policies to critique and oppose. If neither Presidential candidate can present a coherent policy position on climate change, liberty, and war - much less lead on these matters - voting for "None of the Above" or for the nascent greens may well be the best Presidential voting option.

http://www.countercurrents.org/barry161012.htm

Mike Adams - Don't celebrate yet, but a grassroots victory against GMO deception is now inevitable

The battle against genetically modified organisms being secretly engineered into our foods now has only one possible outcome: Victory for the People... and defeat of the corporate quack scientists and the outrageously dishonest and sinister biotech industry that has shoved GMO down our throats for a decade or more.

In terms of victory, I'm not just talking about Proposition 37, although that could very well be a turning point that accelerates the consumer victory. But even if Proposition 37 doesn't pass, the end of the line for hidden GMOs in our food is fast approaching. The word is out. People are getting informed. There's absolutely no going back to the era of "GMO ignorance," and the truth about GMOs causing cancer, infertility, organ damage and other deadly health problems is circulating everywhere.

Read More:

http://www.naturalnews.com/037562_GMO_grassroots_victory_food_labeling.html

Justin Gillis - A Modest Rise in Global Food Prices

Given the fears set off by the agricultural disasters of the summer, the latest report on food prices from the United Nations has to be counted as good news. The Food and Agriculture Organization reported Thursday that global prices rose 1.4 percent in September from the previous month.

Prices increased only 1 percent in the all-important cereals sector, with gains in rice and wheat prices somewhat offset by a drop in corn prices. The overall figures suggest that the price run-ups that accompanied this summer’s weather problems in several producing countries – including the United States, the world’s largest grain exporter – are now largely factored into the market.

And, barring some fresh disaster early in the Southern Hemisphere’s growing season, it probably means we will get through this year without witnessing the peaks in global food prices seen in 2008 and 2011. Those, readers will recall, set off global unrest and prompted renewed commitmentsto agricultural development in poor countries.

Read More:

http://green.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/10/04/a-modest-rise-in-global-food-prices/

Scientists: New GMO wheat may 'silence' vital human genes

Australian scientists are expressing grave concerns over a new type of genetically engineered wheat that may cause major health problems for people that consume it.

University of Canterbury Professor Jack Heinemann announced the results of his genetic research into the wheat, a type developed by Australia's Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO), at a press conference last month.

"What we found is that the molecules created in this wheat, intended to silence wheat genes, can match human genes, and through ingestion, these molecules can enter human beings and potentially silence our genes," Heinemann stated. "The findings are absolutely assured. There is no doubt that these matches exist."

Flinders University Professor Judy Carman and Safe Food Foundation Director Scott Kinnear concurred with Heinemann's analysis.

"If this silences the same gene in us that it silences in the wheat -- well, children who are born with this enzyme not working tend to die by the age of about five," Carman said.

Digital Journal contacted Heniemann and Kinnear for more information on their research and future actions they may take regarding this issue.

"To date we have not heard from CSIRO, nor are we aware that CSIRO has released any safety studies into the GM wheat," Kinnear said in an email response. "We are in the final stages of drafting a formal letter to CSIRO which will be requesting further information and asking for them to undertake the studies that are recommended in our reports."

According to the researchers, extended testing should be performed before the wheat is put on store shelves. "We firmly believe that long term chronic toxicological feeding studies are required in addition to the detailed requests made by Heinemann for the DNA sequences used," Kinnear stated.

"The industry routinely does feeding studies anyway, so it should not be too much more difficult to do long term (lifetime) studies and include inhalation studies," Heinemann added. "These should be tuned to the way people would be exposed to the product."

The researchers also cautioned consumers against eating the wheat if it is approved prematurely. "I would advise citizens to request that these tests be done and the evidence meet with their standards of scientific rigour if in the end it is approved for use," said Heinemann.

If the concerns surrounding CSIRO's GM wheat are not resolved, the issue could end up in court, according to Kinnear: "If CSIRO was to consider moving towards human feeding trials without conducting these studies, we would be looking at what legal avenues are available to stop them."

http://www.digitaljournal.com/print/article/332822#ixzz29Hmk8aJj

Global Food Supply System Could Collapse: 2013 Could Experience A Major Hunger Crisis

World grain reserves are so dangerously low that severe weather in the US or other food-exporting countries could trigger a major hunger crisis next year, said a report by John Vidal in The Observer [1] on October 13, 2012. John cited a UN warning. The food crisis is growing in the Middle East and Africa.

The report said:

Failing harvests in the US, Ukraine and other countries this year have eroded reserves to their lowest level since 1974. The US now holds in reserve a historically low 6.5% of the maize that it expects to consume in the next year.

"We've not been producing as much as we are consuming. That is why stocks are being run down. Supplies are now very tight across the world and reserves are at a very low level, leaving no room for unexpected events next year," said Abdolreza Abbassian, a senior economist with the FAO. With food consumption exceeding the amount grown for six of the past 11 years, countries have run down reserves from an average of 107 days of consumption 10 years ago to under 74 days recently.

Prices of main food crops such as wheat and maize are now close to those that sparked riots in 25 countries in 2008. FAO figures released this week suggest that 870 million people are malnourished and the food crisis is growing in the Middle East and Africa. Wheat production this year is expected to be 5.2% below 2011, with yields of most other crops, except rice, also falling.

The figures come as one of the world's leading environmentalists issued a warning that the global food supply system could collapse at any point, leaving hundreds of millions more people hungry, sparking widespread riots and bringing down governments. In a shocking new assessment of the prospects of meeting food needs, Lester Brown, president of the Earth policy research centre in Washington, says that the climate is no longer reliable and the demands for food are growing so fast that a breakdown is inevitable, unless urgent action is taken.

"Food shortages undermined earlier civilizations. We are on the same path. Each country is now fending for itself. The world is living one year to the next," he writes in a new book.

According to Brown, we are seeing the start of a food supply breakdown with a dash by speculators to "grab" millions of square miles of cheap farmland, the doubling of international food prices in a decade, and the dramatic rundown of countries' food reserves.

This year, for the sixth time in 11 years, the world will consume more food than it produces, largely because of extreme weather in the US and other major food-exporting countries.

Oxfam last week said that the price of key staples, including wheat and rice, may double in the next 20 years, threatening disastrous consequences for poor people who spend a large proportion of their income on food.

In 2012, according to the FAO, food prices are already at close to record levels, having risen 1.4% in September following an increase of 6% in July.

"We are entering a new era of rising food prices and spreading hunger. Food supplies are tightening everywhere and land is becoming the most sought-after commodity as the world shifts from an age of food abundance to one of scarcity," says Brown. "The geopolitics of food is fast overshadowing the geopolitics of oil."

His warnings come as the UN and world governments reported that extreme heat and drought in the US and other major food-exporting countries had hit harvests badly and sent prices spiraling.

"The situation we are in is not temporary. These things will happen all the time. Climate is in a state of flux and there is no normal any more.

"We are beginning a new chapter. We will see food unrest in many more places.

"Armed aggression is no longer the principal threat to our future. The overriding threats to this century are climate change, population growth, spreading water shortages and rising food prices," Brown says.

Another report [2] on global wheat and corn stocks said:

World wheat stocks will drop by 13% next year and corn stocks will also be lower than expected until well into 2013, the US government predicted on October 11, 2012, prior to farm ministers from across the globe meeting to discuss high food prices.

It was the second time in two weeks that the US agriculture department (USDA) delivered low estimates of crop stocks to the markets. This time, the USDA said unrelenting demand would drag down US corn and soybean stocks to the lowest levels in years – 17 years for corn and eight for soybeans.

Agriculture ministers are due to meet next week in Rome amid renewed fears of a crisis in food supplies exacerbated by the worst US drought in more than 50 years, and drought in Australia, the world's leading wheat exporter.

On the US markets, corn futures soared 5% on the USDA's forecasts, hitting a three-week high. Wheat futures were up 2% near the close of the trading day in Chicago and soybeans were up 1.6%. While at high levels, corn is about 10% lower and soybeans 15% lower than the records set during the summer.

The USDA's estimates of the US corn and soybean crops were slightly larger than traders had expected, although the smallest in recent years. Corn and soybeans are raw ingredients in processed foods, fed to livestock and converted to motor fuel. Livestock feeders say they are being ruined by high corn prices and so the US government should relax a requirement to mix corn ethanol into gasoline.

With US corn production down for the third year in a row, usage will be tightened tremendously. Exports are forecast at 1.15bn bushels in 2012-13, the smallest in 37 years. Five years ago, the figure stood at 2.4bn bushels. Meanwhile, corn imports are forecasted to be 75m bushels, three times larger than average. The USDA also cut its estimate of the EU corn crop by 2.6%.

Drought will reduce Australia's wheat crop to 23m tonnes, down 12% from a month ago, the USDA said. Harsh weather, including summer droughts and early frosts, cut an additional 3% from Russia's wheat crop, it said.

The USDA added that while global wheat stocks would be down 13% next year, world soybean inventories would be up, boosted by huge crops in Brazil and Argentina, which would offset the crash is US.

Rebecca Smithers and Fiona Harvey reported [3] the UK food price scenario that shows hardship of common persons in a developed country:

According to a survey by charity IGD ShopperVista which showed that price is crucial in determining product choice, with 41% of shoppers naming it as the most important factor and 90% listing it within their top five influences.

Affordability is now the key factor in determining what food and drink we buy. Food prices have risen 12% in real terms over the last five years, taking us back to 1997 in terms of the cost of food relative to other goods. This week cash-strapped consumers – already stung by extra financial pressures such as rising petrol costs, inflation-busting rail fares and further hikes in their energy bills – were warned to expect further food price rises as a result of the drought in the US and the washed out UK summer that have affected the supply and quality of crops.

All of this has led to a sharp increase in wheat prices in the UK – from £150 a tonne to more than £205 a tonne. This will almost inevitably mean higher bread prices. It is also bad news for meat prices, as farmers struggle to pay for feed for their livestock.

The combination of a severe drought early in the year, followed by the wettest early summer on record, has produced some of the worst possible conditions for Britain's farmers, decimating yields and leaving crops prone to disease. Wheat was the crop worst hit by the heavy rainfall, with a 14% fall in yields, according to the National Farmers' Union.

Other crops have also suffered severe damage.

The British Growers Association (BGA), representing vegetable farmers, said the pea harvest was down about 45% - a reduction that will mean huge imports to make up the shortfall of one of the UK's most popular vegetables.

The much-anticipated Christmas dinner is likely to be dearer too. Poultry producers have seen their overheads increase dramatically, owing to the poor grain harvest, which has pushed up the price of chicken and turkey feed. Early projections show there will be one-fifth fewer Brussels sprouts this year thanks to the weather. Parsnips have had a poor season and the effects of discolouration on potatoes are still to be fully felt.

Retailers are also helping by agreeing to relax some of their high standards on the size and shape of vegetables and fruit. Mis-shapen or small fruit has traditionally been rejected by supermarkets, for aesthetic reasons, but the poor weather has meant an increase in the proportion of slightly odd-looking produce. Throwing that away at a time of high prices would be deeply unpopular, so the shops have promised to take more of them.

All this has put national food policy under the spotlight. The Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) reported last week in a barely noticed 50-page statistical document - the Food Statistics Pocketbook 2012 - that UK food prices have increased by 32% between 2007 and 2012. As a result, lower income families have cut their consumption of fruit and vegetables by nearly one-third to just over half of the five-a-day portions recommended for a healthy diet. No surprise, then, that internet companies selling food past its "best before" date (but still safe to eat) at knock-down prices – known in the industry as "the grey market" – are enjoying a boom.

The consumer group Which? has been interviewing consumers in video "booths" across the UK for its Future of Food project – due to report next month - which is an in-depth investigation into shopping and spending patterns. Early findings show that the average cost of shopping bill is £76.83 per week, an increase of £5.66 compared to a year ago. Most people (86%) said the reason for an increase in their weekly shopping bill was due to an increase in food prices, with only 2% saying it was because they had more money to spend. And 92% said they'd noticed an increase in the price of food in the past year.

In addition, more people (91% compared to 81% a year ago) are shopping around to get the best price; more (91% compared to 74% a year ago) are buying cheaper groceries and more (77% compared to 59% a year ago) are shopping at discount supermarkets.

Mary Creagh MP, Labour's shadow environment secretary, described the current situation as "a national scandal". She said: "Even though we are the seventh richest nation in the world, we face an epidemic of hidden hunger, particularly in children … Being able to feed yourself properly is fundamental to people yet government figures show that people on lower incomes are buying and consuming less than five years ago as fruit, milk, cheese and egg prices are up by 30%."

Food statistics digested from Food Statistics Pocketbook 2012, published by Defra October:

• Food prices rose by 32% in the UK between 2007 and 2012 compared to 13% in France and Germany.

• Fruit and vegetable consumption is falling. The lowest 10% of households by income reduced purchases of fruit and vegetables by 20% between 2007 and 2010.

• There are 63 million consumers in the UK, who last year (2011) spent a total of £179bn on food, drink and catering services, including £101bn on household expenditure on food and drink.

• Consumer expenditure on food, drink and catering has continued to rise despite the economic downturn: a rise of 3.5% in 2011 to £179 billion.

• Fruit prices are the second highest: by 34% since June 2007, rising steadily each year.

Source:

[1] “UN warns of looming worldwide food crisis in 2013”, http://www.guardian.co.uk/global-development/2012/oct/14/un-global-food-crisis-warning?newsfeed=true

[2] Reuters/ guardian.co.uk, “Global wheat and corn stocks to fall in 2013, says US government”, Oct. 12, 2012, http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/oct/12/wheat-corn-stocks-fall-2013-drought

[3] guardian.co.uk, “Food prices: 'Bread, coffee and fresh fruit have become a bit of a luxury'”, Oct. 12, 2012, http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/oct/12/food-prices-affordability-ethical?intcmp=239

http://www.countercurrents.org/cc141012.htm

7 Nasty and Crazy Effects of Pesticides in Food, Exposure

When asked by a skeptical friend why you buy organic, do you find yourself tongue-tied? Was it obesity? Or thyroid problems? Why should you buy organic? There are numerous reasons to skip the mainstream supermarket food and shop at an organic grocer, but just one of those reasons revolves around the effects of pesticides.

Unfortunately, pesticides attack your body on several fronts. Keep this list handy the next time you find yourself wondering if you should buy a carton of conventional strawberries rather than organic to potentially save a few pennies. Remember that all of the following conditions will cost you much more than money; the effects of pesticides will cost you your health.

Here are 7 nasty and crazy effects of pesticides.

Effects of Pesticides – Cancer

The dreaded diagnosis of cancer has been linked in over 260 studies worldwide to agrochemicals. Worse, scientists have linked pesticides with several types of cancers, including that of the breast, prostate, brain, bone, thyroid, colon, liver, lung, and more. Some researchers from USC found that “those who lived within 500 meters of places where methyl bromide, captan and eight other organochlorine pesticides had been applied, they found, were more likely to have developed prostate cancer.”

But even indirect exposure, such as through parental use, has been found to affect children in a terrible way. A study published in Environmental Health Perspectives has linked parental use of pesticides with an increased risk of brain cancer in children. “Parental exposures may act before the child’s conception, during gestation, or after birth to increase the risk of cancer,” the study said. And when the parents are exposed to the pesticides may also play a role in the different cellular changes that lead to cancer.

Obesity and Diabetes

Because pesticides have also been linked to obesity, it’s logical that it would be connected to diabetes, in which obesity often has a role. Some researchers found a higher prevalence of obesity in the participants with high urinary concentrations of a pesticide known as 2,5-dichlorophenol (2,5-DCP). It is important to note that 2,5-DCP is one of the most widely used pesticides on the globe.

Robert Sargis, MD, PhD, revealed his recent study findings at the Endocrine Society’s 94^th Annual Meeting, stating that agricultural fungicide created insulin resistance in fat cells. The journal Diabetes Carepublished in 2011 that people with excess weight and high levels of organochlorine pesticides in their bodies had greater risk of becoming diabetic.

Parkinson’s Disease

Long-term exposure to herbicides and pesticides have been associated in over 60 studies with Parkinson’s. You don’t have to be a conventional farmer to be wary of these findings. Use natural methods to keep pests and weeds out of your home and garden today.

Infertility and Birth Defects

One of the most well-known negative effects of pesticides, infertility is continuously found to be a result of exposure to these agrochemicals. Atrazine—a weed killer used in agriculture as well as on golf courses and which has been found in tap water—may be partially responsible for climbing miscarriage and infertility rates. As for men, one 2006 study pinpointed chlorpyrifos with lowering testosterone levels. This pesticide is often found in strawberry fields and apple and peach orchards.

Other researchers tested roundup on mature male rats at a concentration range between 1 and 10,000 parts per million (ppm),and found that within 1 to 48 hours of exposure, testicular cells of the mature rats were either damaged or killed.

Avoid pesticides even if you’re already pregnant. These chemicals are responsible for causing various birth defects, too. A report revealed that the top selling herbicide Roundup disrupts male hormones due to the main active ingredient – glyphosate.

Autism

Admittedly, pesticides aren’t solely to blame for autism, but they may be a hefty part of the equation. Leading scientists are attributing the condition to genes and insecticides exposed to the mother while pregnant as well as to the child in early years.  This is because many chemicals affect the neurology of bugs, inadvertently affecting the neurological function of children, too. A 2010 Harvard study blames organophosphate pesticides—found in children’s urine—to ADHD.

What is the best way to to avoid pesticide exposure and pesticides in food? Don’t use pesticides, and buy organic. Organic isn’t always easy or cheap, so keep in mind these updated dirty dozen fruits and vegetables to always buy organic (plus 15 cleaner foods you can afford to buy conventional). NASA has also suggested raising air purifying plants indoors to clear your home of indoor air pollution. Remember to remove pesticides from your home, too.

Fighting for Prop 37: The Truth that $36 Million Can’t Hide

The people's movement for our right to know what's in our food has hit a critical fork in the road: the moment when it's time to ask ourselves and each other -- how hard are we willing to fight for our basic right to know what's in the food we're eating and feeding our families? Proposition 37 is the  litmus test for whether there is actually a food movement in this country, writes Michael Pollan in an article to appear in Sunday's New York Times Magazine. It may also be the litmus test for whether there is democracy left in this country. After months of sky-high support in the polls, just 10 days of relentless pounding propaganda by the pesticide industry has made a significant dent in support for Proposition 37 and our right to know if our food is genetically engineered. So worried are the pesticide companies about California consumers having labels on genetically engineered foods that they are spending one million dollars a day flooding the airwaves with a tidal wave of deception about Prop 37. As proof of the dishonest tactics in play, in just the past week, the anti-consumer No on 37 campaign has been accused of misleading voters by Stanford University (twice), the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics and by three major newspapers.

Yet most voters are seeing only one face and hearing only one voice in the debate about Prop 37 - that of notorious pesticide-industry front man Henry Miller. Who is Henry Miller? And can easily discredited pesticide-industry lies really win an election?  Easily Discredited Pesticide-Industry Lies Hour after hour in every media market across the state, Henry Miller appears on TV to explain his views about Proposition 37. The ad campaign was exposed as dishonest at the outset, when Stanford University forced the anti-Prop 37 campaign to yank the ad because it falsely identified Miller as a doctor at Stanford (he is actually a researcher at the Hoover Institution), and used images of Stanford's vaulted buildings to push a political position in violation of university policy. The edited ad was soon back on the air -- one viewer in San Francisco reported seeing it 12 times in one day -- pounding voters with Henry Miller's message that Prop 37 "makes no sense." But a lot of things that make sense to the rest of us don't make sense to Henry Miller: for example, that DDT was banned for a reason, or that exposure to radioactive elements after a nuclear power plant meltdown is not a health benefit. (Read all about the extreme views of the No on 37 science spokesperson here.) Henry Miller is the perfect poster guy for the lack of credibility of the pesticide giants' campaign against our right to know what's in our food.  Who are they going to trot out next, the president of the Flat Earth Society? The only honest thing about the No on 37 ads is the disclaimer that tells us who's funding this campaign of deception -- Monsanto and Dupont, the same companies that told us DDT and Agent Orange were safe. Setting the Record Straight Yet incredibly, it's working. Henry Miller's hypocritical script in a misleading ad campaign that was discredited as soon as it began has taken a bit hit out of the support for Prop 37. In the ad, Miller claims the exemptions included in Prop 37 are "illogical" and included "for special interests." As if the companies for which he is working - the biggest special interests of all - would be in favor of Prop 37 if it were even stronger. They would not. For the record, the exemptions are common sense. They follow the trajectory of labeling bills in the Europe Union and all around the world. Prop 37 will cover the vast majority of genetically engineered foods that consumers are eating - the food on supermarket shelves. Meat, milk and eggs would be labeled if they came from genetically engineered animals. There are no genetically engineered animals in the human food supply right now, but if there were, they would have to be labeled. Which will come in handy since the first GE animal is on its way to our dinner plates - a salmon genetically engineered with an eel to grow twice as fast. Wouldn't you want to know if you were eating such a thing? Because Prop 37 is designed to be simple and business friendly, it does not require labeling for cows that eat genetically engineered feed. It would not be a simple matter to track what cows eat. More to the point, that exemption is common around the world. It didn't make sense for California to try to leapfrog over the rest of the world with our labeling law, when we have been trying to catch up with the rest of the world for 15 years. Yes pet food would have to be labeled if it contains genetically engineered crops like corn or soy. That's because the standard definition of food under the Sherman Act considers pet food to be food - so argue that one with the legislature. As for other story lines the opposition is shopping -- there will be no increased costs to consumers with Prop 37. Doesn't it seem strange that these companies would spend tens of millions of dollars to convince us that adding a little ink to their labels will force them to raise the cost of groceries? And as for "shakedown lawsuits," that makes no sense when you consider the fact that there are no incentives for lawyers to sue under Prop 37. The only shakedown lawsuits related to this issue are the thousands of farmers Monsanto is suing for planting their own seeds to grow food. In case you missed it, consider this chilling sentence from last week's Washington Post: Monsanto "has filed lawsuits around the country to enforce its policy against saving the seeds for the future." Policy against the future? Sounds about right. Pet Food for Thought While Californians are mired in debate about pet food versus steak, the real question facing voters is this:  Are we going to allow out-of-state pesticide and junk food corporations tell us what we can and can't know about what's in the food we eat? "What makes you think you have the right to know?" asks Danny DeVito in a a parody video supporting Prop 37. "Knowing if you're buying or eating genetically engineered food is not your right." "Maybe move to Europe or Japan if you want that right," says Kaitlin Olson. "Or China," adds Dave Matthews, because, "Here in American you don't get the right to know if you're eating genetically modified organisms." Unless, unless: We demand that GMOs get labeled. Unless we vote yes on Prop 37. Unless we influence every single California voter we can to do the same. The Yes on 37 campaign is a true people's movement for our right to know what's in our food. We will not be stopped. When California voters go to the polls this November, they will value their right to know what's in their food, rather than leaving it up to the pesticide industry and Henry Miller to make those choices for us. But in order to win this, every single one of us has to fight like hell to make it happen. read more.. http://www.nationofchange.org/fighting-prop-37-truth-36-million-can-t-hide-1350097249