Blog Posts: Farming

This Saturday, May 25, tens of thousands of activists across six continents, 41 countries and more than 330 cities are expected to “March Against Monsanto.”  Instigated and driven completely by grassroots activists, this global day of action hopes to demonstrate that, when many people ban together for justice and transparency, they can fight back against the powerful few. Watch this InfoWars news alert about Monsanto’s CEO feeling threatened by grassroots efforts, particularly social media.

Food & Water Watch supports the solutions that March Against Monsanto advocates for – the need for mandatory GE food labeling and further scientific research on the health and environmental impacts of GE food and repealing the Monsanto Rider that slipped into the recent budget bill (also known as the Monsanto Protection Act).

We too call for more transparency about the undue influence that Monsanto and other biotechnology seed corporations hold over our government and recently released a stunning report about how the U.S. State Department works to promote Monsanto and the biotech seed industry on the taxpayer’s dime. Link to that report as well as a corporate profile on Monsanto and a primer on GE food, below.

Food & Water Watch is proud to be supporting March Against Monsanto activities in various cities across the country – New York City; New Brunswick, New Jersey; Miami, Florida; Portland, Maine; Mystic, Connecticut; Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; Detroit, Michigan (check out these great pictures from a sign and costume making party earlier this week); Chicago and Springfield, Illinois; Des Moines and the Quad Cities, Iowa; Cincinnati, Ohio; Denver, Colorado; Albuquerque and Santa Fe, New Mexico; Portland, Oregon; and Seattle and Ramond, Washington.

Whether or not you’re planning to March Against Monsanto this weekend, arm yourself with the facts. Food & Water Watch reports, fact sheets, blogs, press releases and sharable images can all be found here: http://www.foodandwaterwatch.org/food/genetically-engineered-foods/monsanto/, and more information on GE foods here: http://www.foodandwaterwatch.org/food/genetically-engineered-foods/.

By Patty Lovera

Confused about the Farm Bill? Click here to read our report, Farm Bill 101.

This week, both the House and Senate Agriculture committees adopted their versions of the 2013 Farm Bill. This is the latest move in the long-running attempt to pass a “normal” 5-year farm bill to replace one that was last passed in 2008. Several attempts to pass a farm bill in 2012 were unsuccessful and the farm bill that is currently in effect is a short-term extension that expires in September 2013.

There are some significant differences between the House and the Senate, in both what their bills actually contain and in the process used to get them through the committee. Both sides had an abbreviated process, skipping the normal step of conducting a series of hearings to explore various issues before writing the bill. But the Senate Agriculture Committee took the streamlining even further, managing to discuss, amend and pass its version of the bill in a little under three hours on Tuesday. The House Agriculture Committee finished theirs in a marathon session that took most of the day, wrapping up just before midnight Wednesday night.

Now each bill (HR 1947 and S 954) has to go to the floor for the whole body to vote on. The Senate is going first, with leadership claiming they will do the Farm Bill as early as next week. The full House may see their bill in June.

Read the full article…

By Genna Reed

A new review of hundreds of scientific studies surrounding glyphosate—the major component of Monsanto’s Roundup herbicide— sheds light on its effects within the human body. The paper describes how all of these effects could work together, and with other variables, trigger health problems in humans, including debilitating diseases like gastrointestinal disorders, diabetes, heart disease, obesity and Alzheimer’s disease.

Glyphosate impairs the cytochrome P450 (CYP) gene pathway, which creates enzymes that help to form and also break down molecules in cells. There are myriad important CYP enzymes, including aromatase (the enzyme that converts androgen into estrogen) and 21-Hydroxylase, which creates cortisol (stress hormone) and aldosterone (regulates blood pressure). One function of these CYP enzymes is also to detoxify xenobiotics, which are foreign chemicals like drugs, carcinogens or pesticides. Glyphosate inhibits these CYP enzymes, which has rippling effects throughout our body.

Because the CYP pathway is essential for normal functioning of various systems in our bodies, any small change in its expression can lead to disruptions. For example, humans exposed to glyphosate have decreased levels of the amino acid tryptophan, which is necessary for active signaling of the neurotransmitter serotonin. Suppressed serotonin levels have been associated with weight gain, depression, and Alzheimer’s disease.

This paper does not claim to yield new scientific discoveries. Instead, it looks at older studies in a new light. Critics will say the links between glyphosate and health problems made in this paper are purely correlational, but this work is important because it brings all of the possible health effects of glyphosate together and discusses what could happen: something the USDA, EPA and FDA have failed to do.

Just as Monsanto attempted to discredit Seralini’s study on rats fed GE corn, the company called this peer-reviewed journal article “another bogus study” due to its “bad science.” In a classic pot-calling-the-kettle-black scenario, what Monsanto doesn’t mention is that the majority of research showing glyphosate’s safety has been done by Monsanto itself, which could be called bad science as well due to its limited and biased nature.

The authors of the new review call for more independent research to validate their findings, stating that “glyphosate is likely to be pervasive in our food supply, and, contrary to being essentially nontoxic, it may in fact be the most biologically disruptive chemical in our environment.” If the body of independent research on GE foods and the herbicides used with them shows one thing, it is that there are unanswered questions begging for unbiased research. And while these questions remain unanswered, Americans have the right to know how their food was produced – take action to tell your members of Congress to support mandatory GE labeling.

By Tim Schwab

Journalism and agriculture students at public universities, watch out.

Your administrators are laying out the red carpet for corporate junkets at a campus near you. With names like HungerU and Biotech University, these “educational” opportunities amount to little more than a slick propaganda campaign from biotech corporations.

DuPont Crop Protection (translation: herbicides and pesticides) is visiting universities in California and Arizona this week, wooing students with $2,500 grants and embarking on a mission to “educate college students about the significance of modern agriculture.” It’s called HungerU.

That’s a catchy name, but does a profit-driven chemical producer whose goal is to expand herbicide and pesticide sales really have much to offer students on the issue of food security? Something tells me its answer to hunger is more chemicals.

Meanwhile, Biotech U goes beyond the ag school to influence an entirely different set of future professionals: journalism students. Each year, the industry-friendly United Soybean Board partners with our nation’s journalism schools in an effort to “educate” future reporters about the role of biotechnology. The program includes all-expense paid gigs on agricultural reporting in exotic places like Turkey and China. This year, the winner goes to Italy. Who wouldn’t want a trip to Italy?

Noting that these future journalists will be “shaping the public’s perception of biotechnology in the coming decades,” Biotech U is part of a long-term strategic plan by the biotech industry to foster public acceptance of genetically engineered crops. The program also intends to “enlist future biotech advocates identified within university journalism programs to develop a draft program at other journalism schools.”

These insidious efforts by the biotech industry are a very small part of the hundreds of millions of dollars pouring into academia from corporations, distorting the science and perverting the mission of higher education. Our public universities increasingly function like corporate laboratories—taking corporate research money to conduct experiments in corporate-sponsored laboratories, then publishing pro-industry findings in corporate-sponsored “scientific” journals.

Food & Water Watch detailed the ways in which industry is buying influence at our public universities in our report Public Research, Private Gain.

This new era of corporate influence is undermining intellectual freedom and academic independence. Professors that might otherwise pursue research that might challenge the bottom lines of biotech companies—for example, studying the negative health, environmental or economic effects of pesticides and biotech crops—simply choose not to for fear of losing future industry research funding or upsetting tenure-granting administrators. That means federal agencies writing the rules and regulations that govern biotech corporations often base their decisions on a body of science that only says industrial agriculture is safe, good and necessary.

Meanwhile, farmers that might want to want to pursue an alternative production model to agrochemicals, monocultures and factory farms have little research or academic support.

And students—our next generation of journalists, farmers and policy makers—graduate from schools that increasingly offer only the virtues of big business instead of teaching students to think critically about the dominant model of industrial agriculture or consider alternative solutions.

Don’t biotech and pesticide companies already have too much influence over our public universities? If you attend one of these schools, call your university administrators and tell them enough is enough.

By Anna Ghosh

Whether you’re a full-time farmer or an indoor herb gardener, the spring planting season is in full swing. But where do the seeds that get planted come from? When we think about consolidation in the food system, retailers like Walmart or mega junk food manufacturers like PepsiCo come to mind. But the corporate consolidation and control of our food supply literally begins at its inception with seeds.

This hasn’t always been the case. As recently as 20 years ago, local, independent seed companies thrived. There used to be 300 seed companies but now there are only 150 that are independently owned and Monsanto and DuPont control most of the supply.

Farmers are dependent on a smaller number of firms for seeds, and the prices have risen sharply as the market has become more concentrated. A few major chemical and pharmaceutical giants that patent specific traits in seeds and charge fees to farmers who use their patented seeds now dominate the seed industry, which once relied on universities for most research and development.

Between 1996 and 2007, Monsanto, the largest supplier of GE seed traits, acquired more than a dozen smaller companies, and it now controls 60 percent of corn and 62.5 percent of soybean seeds and seed trait licenses in the United States.

Monsanto’s vegetable seed subsidiary, Seminis, is one of the largest seed distributors and has been acquiring seed companies since the mid-1990s. Monsanto acquired Seminis in 2005.

In addition to the many seed companies that are partially or fully owned by Monsanto and Seminis, some seed companies distribute Seminis products, along with other companies’ products. This does not mean that Seminis or Monsanto owns these companies, nor do they necessarily supply GE vegetables — Seminis has many products that are conventionally bred hybrid varieties. But they do bring Seminis products to the market.

Want to know if Monsanto owns the company you buy your seeds from? Check out our fact sheet here: http://foodandwaterwatch.org/factsheet/monsantos-seed-company-subsidiaries/

Listen to Margaret Roach give tips for sourcing ethical seeds: http://blogs.kcrw.com/goodfood/2013/04/tips-for-sourcing-ethical-seeds-for-your-edible-garden/

And get the nitty gritty details about the rise of the biotech industry and how it gets away with patenting life for profit and dominates our seed supply in Wenonah Hauter’s book, Foodopoly, here: http://www.foodopoly.org/about/

By Patty Lovera

If there is one thing you can count on with this Congress, it’s drama over money. The month of March has seen plenty of funding fights, with sequestration in the beginning of the month and an ugly process to prevent a federal government shutdown at the end.  

One of the many problems with operating this way is how many opportunities for mischief are available when Congress is dealing with a huge package of “must pass” legislation. That’s exactly what happened last week when Congress passed a “continuing resolution” to fund the federal government for the rest of the year (the President signed it into law this week). This continuing resolution was necessary because Congress did not complete the normal process for setting budgets for federal agencies and the government has been running on an extension of the previous year’s budget that was about to run out. Read the full article…

Credit: NASA

By Genna Reed

Industry currently estimates that at least 60 million acres of crops are now resistant to at least one herbicide. Almost half of the U.S. farmers interviewed in an industry survey reported that glyphosate-resistant weeds, and the rate at which the weeds are spreading, are increasing every year. In Georgia, a staggering 92 percent of the surveyed farmers reported having glyphosate-resistant weeds in 2012.

And even though weed scientists clamor for alternative solutions and diversified approaches to weed management to avert further damage, industry and the USDA seem to believe that simply throwing more herbicides and associated herbicide-tolerant crops at the problem is the solution. There are currently 19 GE crop petitions that have been submitted for approval by the USDA. Of those 19 crops, 14 are resistant to herbicides. You might remember that a handful of these crops were introduced in the form of a rocket docket of 12 new petitions last July.

Just when we had gotten over the trauma of the last slew of incoming petitions, the end of February brought on a second wave when USDA announced the comment periods for seven new crops and approved another. Among the seven are new, stacked herbicide-tolerant crops designed to fight glyphosate-resistant weeds that have developed since Roundup Ready crops were introduced in 1996, which led to the almost exclusive use of glyphosate for weed control.

One of the crops with a 60-day comment period ending in April is Monsanto’s dicamba and glufosinate tolerant cotton. Dicamba belongs to the same herbicide class as 2,4-D: synthetic auxins. By design, these herbicides act similarly to growth regulators in several species of broadleaf plants, causing abnormal growth and death. This would be less egregious if it stayed put, but since dicamba and 2,4-D are especially prone to drift, any specialty crops—like tomatoes, grapes and potatoes—that are near fields sprayed with these herbicides could be in danger of herbicide-related yield loss.

And just when you think USDA might have learned its lesson with glyphosate, one of the 30-day comment periods is for a draft Environmental Assessment for yet another glyphosate-tolerant corn. Apparently the glyphosate lesson has somehow still not been learned. Not only that, but simultaneously introducing more herbicides into the mix will just fan the proverbial wildfire that is herbicide-resistant weeds.

While this may sound too senseless to believe, these herbicide-laden crops could glide right through approval unless we let the USDA know we’re watching and we’re not going to let them repeat the same mistakes that got us into this superweed mess in the first place.

By Anna Ghosh

Food labels are a straightforward and fundamental concept but consumer advocates and concerned citizens have been fighting for honest, transparent labels about their food for centuries, and the fight rages on. Food & Water Watch and its allies are fighting hard across the country to make the labeling of genetically engineered (GE) food the law. However, there’s another important label that is law, but its fate is hanging in the balance – Country of Origin Labeling, or COOL. After more than a decade of hard work, the COOL rule was included in the 2008 Farm Bill and has had overwhelming support from both consumers and U.S. farmers, despite repeated attempts by the food industry to kill the program and delay its implementation.

Today, because of COOL, consumers know more about where their food comes from, although there are still too many loopholes and limitations. COOL  applies to fresh seafood, cuts of meat (but not processed meats like sausage), fresh and frozen fruits and vegetables, and several kinds of nuts. But even before the first COOL label was slapped on a steak or pork chop, the meatpacking industry sought to unravel COOL by challenging theses commonsense consumer labels at the World Trade Organization as an illegal barrier to international trade Read the full article…

herbicide-resistant weeds take over tractor

By Genna Reed

Last week, Dow announced that because the USDA has not yet approved its 2,4-D Corn “Enlist” variety yet, it will not be ready for planting until at least 2014. This is great news for all of the groups and individuals who have garnered over 400,000 petition signatures telling the USDA not to approve the toxic corn.

This delay is certainly worth celebrating, but the fight to stop the approval of this corn is not over. Dow has gained approval in Canada and Japan for its Enlist brand and is still ramping up production of its 2,4-D herbicide and 2,4-D-resistant corn seeds with every expectation that it will be approved in the U.S. Read the full article…

Last week, a condensed version of Andy Bellatti’s interview with Wenonah Hauter on her new book Foodopoly ran on Grist: Aisle be damned: How Big Food dominates your supermarket choices. We thought our blog readers would appreciate seeing the entire interview, which goes into the specifics on how fractured our food system really is,  how it got that way and what we can do about it.

1. In Foodopoly, you make a very convincing argument that, unlike what many in the “good food” movement think, crop subsidies are not the problem to solve, but rather the symptom of a much larger problem. Can you expand on that concept? Read the full article…