Post Script

That's one less nasty toxin to worry about ... and one more to worry about

Grist reports that a decade-long fight by consumer advocates has finally resulted in an EPA ban on the pesticide endosulfan. Similar to DDT, but perhaps more toxic, endosulfan has been banned in the European Union since 2007 but was commonly used in the United States on tomatoes in Florida and cotton in California and Nevada. Other items treated with the substance include melons, cucumbers, squashes, potatoes, apples, blueberries, eggplant, lettuce, pears, peppers and stone fruit.

Of course, this victory is offset by the worrying development in California; the pending and possible approval of methyl iodide as a pesticide to be used by strawberry growers. Methyl iodide is more toxic than the now-banned methyl bromide that it may replace.

Big Ag responds to superweeds with more chemicals

We blogged about Monsanto's super weeds back in early May, and now Grist.org addresses how the agricultural giants are handling the problem. Weeds are growing resistant to the chemicals in Roundup? Then the answer must be more chemicals!

An excerpt: "As application rates have ramped up, the superweed menace has become so obvious the mainstream press has taken notice. 'Superweeds Hit Farm Belt, Triggering New Arms Race,' declares a Wall Street Journal headline from last week. (...) Rather than spark a reassessment of the wisdom of relying on toxic chemicals, the failure of Roundup Ready has the U.S. agricultural establishment scrambling to intensify chemical use.

The Journal reports that Dow Chemical, DuPont, Bayer, BASF and Sygenta are 'together spending hundreds of millions of dollars to develop genetically modified soybean, corn, and cotton seeds that can survive a dousing by their herbicides,' most of which are 'many decades old' and highly toxic.' "

Sigh.

Food fight: Debating GMOs and organic

On the subject of food security, agriculture, poverty and hunger, there is little to no consensus. One side argues for GMOs and pesticides to help poor farmers increase their yield and improve their economy. The other side argues for an organic agricultural model, claiming that it can sustain the world. Who is right?

SEED Magazine has attempted to answer that question, or at least to hear both sides of the argument laid out. The editors recruited two academics to debate the issue:

• M. Jahi Chappell, ecologist and post-doctoral researcher at Cornell University focusing his studies on food security and sustainability.
• Robert Paarlberg, professor of political science at Wellesley College whose research interests are in international agriculture and biotechnology.

The debaters addressed the causes of hunger and the meaning of sustainable agriculture. The debate quickly became focused on one vital issue: the question of yield. According to SEED: "Paarlberg has mostly argued in favor of technology-intensive agriculture, going as far as to argue that elitist foodies in wealthy nations imperil Africa by spreading their anti-biotech sentiments."

Chappell's response is to argue that "the scientific foundations of organic and agro-ecological farming are sound. (...) Agroecology empowers small-scale farmers, he argues, and by shrinking farming's outsized ecological footprint - including its impact on wild biodiversity - conserves the public goods that benefit us all."

Read the full debate here.

Haitian farmers vow to burn Monsanto donation

Upon hearing news of a purported donation of 60,000 sacks of hybrid seeds from agribusiness giant, Monsanto, Haiti's Peasant Movement of Papay (MPP) announced that the seeds will be burned, and the group will call for a protest against the corporation's presence in the country on June 4, World Environment Day.

In an open letter on May 14, Executive Director of MPP, Chavannes Jean-Baptiste, called the import of Monsanto seeds into Haiti "a very strong attack on small agriculture, on farmers, on biodiversity, on Creole seeds ... and on what is left of our environment in Haiti."

The country's Ministry of Agriculture has rejected the import of Monsanto's genetically-engineered Roundup Ready seed. But Monsanto executives say this donation does not contain GMOs. So why the protest?

According to Truthout:

The hybrid corn seeds Monsanto has donated to Haiti are treated with the fungicide Maxim XO, and the calypso tomato seeds are treated with thiram.(3) Thiram belongs to a highly toxic class of chemicals called ethylene bisdithiocarbamates (EBDCs). Results of tests of EBDCs on mice and rats caused concern to the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), which then ordered a special review. The EPA determined that EBDC-treated plants are so dangerous to agricultural workers that they must wear special protective clothing when handling them. Pesticides containing thiram must contain a special warning label, the EPA ruled.

The full story and background links on Truthout.org.

What's more brilliant than a solar panel?

 A community solar garden, that's what. 

We love this idea. Imagine your roof isn't a viable home for a solar panel due to shade trees looming overhead, or you're a renter. But you'd love to harness the sun's power, and get credits/payment from your utility company for doing so. With the right legislation passed, the answer could be around the corner: community solar gardens. 

Following a cooperative model (and we love those), the gardens would be a spot for neighbors or groups to come together, pool resources, create a solar panel "garden" and use the utility credits for good. Imagine the parents of an underfunded school pooling together to put panels on the school roof and using those utility payments to re-hire a laid-off teacher or reinstall an arts program.

Via the LiveOAK network.

Chemicals banned in the '70s still in our food?

A brief article on the LiveOAK network talks about POPs (persistent organic pollutants) and how these chemicals, banned in the 1970s, are still found in our food. 

An excerpt: "POPs become increasingly concentrated as they move through the food chain. Animals being fed animal fat is one major source of POPs in humans. A 2003 report, published by National Academies Press, noted that 'feed containing animal fat was a major source of people's continued exposure to dioxins, which are carcinogenic.' "

There are implications involving genetically-engineered seeds, too. Will we regret their use decades from now? The full story here.

Uh-oh. Did Kagan stand by Monsanto?

You know the story. A sitting president throws out a Supreme Court nominee and the opposition scurries to find as much credibility-undermining ammunition as possible. It doesn't matter which president, party or nominee, the story follows the same plot line. 

Since Mr Obama spoke her name three days ago, Elena Kagan has been the subject of debate and speculation - both pertinent and otherwise - around the clock. As usual, much of is it bluster.

But this headline did catch our attention and is giving us reason to dig a little deeper on the issue. Did Elena Kagan side with Monsanto over the ban on genetically-engineered alfalfa?

According to Truthout: "... in June 2009, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the previous ruling and placed a nationwide ban on Monsanto's Roundup Ready alfalfa. (...) Monsanto. however, didn't back down and appealed the Ninth Circuit's decision to the US Supreme Court. In stepped Elena Kagan, whose role as solicitor general is to look out for the welfare of American citizens in all matters that come before the high court.

Unfortunately, (...) as Kagan's office argued: ' The judgment of the court of appeals should be reversed, and the case should be remanded with instructions to vacate the permanent injunction entered by the district court.' "

An Atlantic Monthly editorial also touches on the story, stating: "It's a good thing for Elena Kagan that there's no non-GMO litmus test for Supreme Court nominees. She'd flunk."

As we said: uh-oh.

If we can't save the planet, then ... what?

"For 15 years I have been an environmental campaigner and writer. For two of those three years I was deputy editor of the Ecologist. I campaigned against climate change, deforestation, overfishing, landscape destruction, extinction and all the rest. I wrote about how the global economic system was trashing the global ecosystem. I did all the things that environmentalists do. But after a while, I stopped believing it."

So writes Paul Kingsnorth in the Guardian. No longer a "green" campaigner, Kingsnorth is now co-founder of a new movement, the Dark Mountain Project. This so-called project has taken on a life of its own, attracting disillusioned eco-warriors in droves, all of them, Kingsnorth says, admitting that they no longer believe we can save the world from us.

Dark Mountain members, some of them high profile writers and scholars, will congregate at the end of May in a small northern Welsh town to talk about the future of this earth, what it means to say you don't think we can save it, and what on earth (pun intended) you do instead? 

Want to learn more? Go to The Guardian interview or visit Kingsnorth's The Dark Mountain Project.

Update: outpouring of protests over GE alfalfa

We recently alerted our readers to pending USDA action on genetically engineered alfalfa, since it appeared the product was poised for an approval vote.  

We believe that consumers do not want to eat genetically modified food, and given a chance, would speak out against a vote to approve GE Roundup Ready alfalfa. As the Center for Food Safety so eloquently puts it: "USDA's Environmental Impact Study claims that organic consumers do not care about GE contamination of their food, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Consumers surveys show that 75 percent or more of respondents repeatedly say that they do not want to eat GE contaminated food and cite their desire to avoid GE foods as one of the top five reasons for buying organic."

The Center for Food Safety and other groups spearheaded the call to action (which was linked on the right side of this blog), encouraging readers to submit their opinion to the USDA during the extended feedback period. The deadline of March 3 has now passed and the government is no longer accepting public feedback.

The good news is that many people responded to the call, with total numbers exceeding 200,000. Some reports have the figure at 300,000.

We are hopeful that it was enough. Watch this blog for updates on this important issue.

The link between pesticides and Parkinson's

Online and in print, some studies are being cited arguing that there's no nutritional benefit to eating organic produce over conventional produce. Some experts say it might not be worth the premium you can sometimes pay. 

One thing is certain; it does pay to look at who is funding those studies. And aside from the nutritional aspect, what about the potential harm caused by pesticides and chemicals?

This Onearth.org article tells the story of a young mother diagnosed with Parkinson's disease; a condition that usually afflicts older males. It also mentions a bevy of studies supporting a link between Parkinson's and the pesticides on conventional food and fields. Here's an excerpt:

Environmental Threats to Healthy Aging, a report co-authored by the Science and Environmental Health Network, a consortium of advocacy groups based in Ames, Iowa, included a summary of 31 population studies that have looked at the possible connection between pesticide exposure and Parkinson's. Twenty-four of those studies, according to the report, found a positive association, and in 12 cases the association was statistically significant. In some studies, the group found, there was as much as a sevenfold greater risk of Parkinson's in people exposed to pesticides. In addition, in April 2009, scientists at the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA), published a provocative study connecting the disease not only to occupational pesticide exposure but also to living in homes or going to schools that were close to a pesticide-treated field.