Menu Posts

Tag Archives | end citizen’s united

Was the COP 21 a success or a failure?

Many pundits say both. On the positive side, 185 global leaders have finally acknowledged a unified understanding of the scope and seriousness of the climate crisis.

Here is a photo of climate activists in a demonstration at the Eiffel Tower demanding the shift to 100% renewable energy.

Join GO GREEN at the Sustainability Summit 2016.

Screen Shot 2015-12-15 at 8.47.32 PM

The COP 21 gathering was the largest global gathering of climate and sustainability activists of all time. If you missed being there, don’t miss being part of next year’s Sustainability “Solutions” Summit 2016.
There are just 15 days until the December 31, 2015 discount deadline.
To learn more about the Summit and to see your discount level, go to:
http://www.gogreenculture.org/2016-sustainability-summit/

Many say that the levels of CO2 reduction set by the voluntary national programs of COP 21 are not enough. Left at their current levels, this will result in ecological disasters, severe and broad scale human suffering, and costs that are expected to exceed $250 billion per year. We need to do more than our leaders have set out for us.

Bill McKibben stated in Paris, “Now the real work must begin in earnest.” 

The global leaders have spoken. Many experts are saying it will be up to sustainability leaders and professionals on the local and regional levels to make the substantive shifts needed in carbon output, renewable energy, restored ecosystems, and more.

The Sustainability Summit 2016 is designed to support the accelerated success of local sustainability professionals and activists. Hundreds of proven projects and programs, including the 100 Top Best Practices of Sustainable Communities, will be shared at the Summit in July, a mere 8 months away. Don’t miss out on this important information. You will be empowered to more rapidly and cost effectively advance your corporate, organizational, and/or municipal sustainability goals. We expect Delegates to use this knowledge and wisdom to save their companies and local governments hundreds of thousands to millions of dollars on future sustainability investments.

Sign up now to be a Delegate at the Sustainability “Solutions” Summit 2016. Help your group avoid being part of the $250 billion short fall next year.

Here is a photo of San Francisco modified to show what the city could look like in 2050 based on a 12 foot rise in sea level.

Join GO GREEN at the Sustainability Summit 2016. Let’s advance the sustainability of our local cultures together over the coming year. 
There are just 15 days until the December 31, 2015 discount deadline.
To learn more about the Summit and to see your discount level, go to:
http://www.gogreenculture.org/2016-sustainability-summit/
Join GO GREEN on Maui, Hawaii ~ July 17-22, 2016

Go Green Membership

Please visit our web site and consider becoming a Go Green Member ~ starting at $3 per month or any financial level you choose.

Go to:  www.GoGreenCulture.org and click on one of the Join Us boxes.

Thank you for all you are doing to advance sustainability in our world.

Aloha ~

Gerry Dameron                  Deborah Smith

Executive Director            Education Director

Copyright © 2015 Go Green Culture Foundation, Used by permission. 

0

Last week, WikiLeaks released the final text of the TPP’s intellectual property rights chapter, and it’s absolutely terrifying.

tpp-protestThese are just a few of its most dangerous pieces:

Compel ISPs to take down websites without any sort of court order, just like SOPA. (Appendix Section I)

Extend the US’s copyright regime to require copyrights stand for life plus 70 years, preventing anyone from using works that belong in the public domain. (Article QQ.G.6)

Criminalize whistleblowing by extending trade secrets laws without any mandatory exemptions for whistleblowers or investigative journalists. (QQ.H.8)

End anonymity online by forcing every domain name to be associated with a real name and address. (Article QQ.C.12)

Make it illegal to unlock, modify, or generally tinker with a device you own. (Article QQ.G.10)

Export the US’s broken copyright policies to the rest of the world without expanding any of the free speech protections, like fair use. (Article QQ.G.17)

The worst part is that this is just one of the TPP’s 30 chapters.

The final text confirms our worst fears — click here to take action demanding Congress vote NO on the TPP.

Hawaii-anti-TPP-protest-Marco-GarciaREUTERS-July-30-2015

Photo courtesy: http://www.maryscullyreports.com

For years, governments have held critics of the massive Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement in a perfect catch 22. Officials brushed off public outcry and concern by claiming that the dissenters didn’t have all the facts.

This was by design—the 12 country trade deal was negotiated entirely behind closed doors by industry lobbyists and government appointees, and even now the text of the agreement is still classified.

But late last week, WikiLeaks released the final text of the Intellectual Property chapter, meaning those excuses won’t work anymore.

We’re planning to go all out against the TPP, but the first step is to make sure Congress knows just how many people oppose the TPP.

Click here to take action demanding Congress vote NO on the TPP.

tpp_protestersTaking action today is just the beginning, because if all we do is send emails and make phone calls, Congress is not going to reject the TPP. Too many giant industries are seriously invested in making sure Congress ratifies the TPP.

If we’re going to win, we need to go big. Which is exactly what we’re going to do.

So take action right now. Contact your Congresspeople now and tell them to vote against the TPP. Then get ready to do more because we’re going to unleash some of our strongest campaigns ever.

Already we have plans to work with hundreds of different groups as a massive coalition to fight the TPP, coordinate gigantic on-the-ground protests in key cities across the country, and produce compelling content to spread the word to as many different audiences as possible just what is at stake in the TPP.

To do all that, we need your help — if you can, pledge to chip in $5 every month between now and when the TPP fight ends so that we can run our biggest, boldest, and best campaign yet.

Thanks for all you do,
Charlie

P.S. Want to read the text of the chapter for yourself? Check it out on WikiLeaks here, or read their overview of it here. It’s long and complicated, so maybe you’ll see something that we didn’t. If you do, send us an email.

0

Mahalo to The Center for Food Safety for Suing the USDA over censorship of GMO records.   We will take back our food supply eventually.  Our nation too.

U.S. regulator sued for withholding information on GMO crops

 A food safety advocacy group sued an arm of the U.S. Department of Agriculture on Tuesday, saying it illegally withheld public information on genetically engineered crops.

The lawsuit, brought by the Center for Food Safety (CFS) against the USDA’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS), claims the regulator has routinely failed to respond as required to requests for records that relate to many concerns with the GMO crops.

The lawsuit accuses the agency of violating the Freedom of Information Act dozens of times, unlawfully withholding information for more than 13 years. APHIS had no immediate response.

In particular, the lawsuit alleges that the agency failed to respond as required to requests for records related to new GMO regulations that APHIS proposed in 2008 but withdrew earlier this year.

The lawsuit also accuses the agency of failing to respond as required to inquiries about the handling of experimental genetically engineered wheat that was found growing uncontrolled in an Oregon field in 2013. That incident led to lost U.S. wheat export sales as foreign markets feared contaminated supplies.

The lawsuit says APHIS has also failed to respond to requests or withheld records it sought about the handling of other experimental crops that the group believes have escaped review and regulation.

The requests have covered GMO wheat, rice, alfalfa, sugar beets, bent grass, corn and other GMOs. Delays in providing information have run years for some requests, and violated federal law covering the release of public information, according to the lawsuit.

For years, advocacy groups, lawmakers and others critics have harshly criticized U.S. regulation of GMOs as too lax. APHIS has been cited in government auditing for oversight lapses. Some GMO contamination events have led to food recalls and disrupted trade.

In July, the White House directed APHIS and the two other U.S. agencies that oversee biotech crop products, the Environmental Protection Agency and the Food and Drug Administration, to improve and modernize their regulatory framework to boost public confidence.

The CFS lawsuit, filed in federal court in Washington, asks the court to declare APHIS’s actions unlawful and order the agency to produce the records by date to be set by the court. CFS also asks that the court supervise the regulator for compliance.

The Freedom of Information Act provides for the release of federal agency records when requested, with certain exemptions and provisions, and imposes strict deadlines on government agencies to respond.

(Reporting by Carey Gillam; Editing by David Gregorio)

0

Tulsi Gabbard, Maui’s U.S. Congressional Representative, denounced the TPP this morning on the floor of the House of Representatives

Get info and join tomorrow’s event!

Gabbard: “The people of Hawaii and all Americans are rightfully concerned about how this (secret TPP) trade deal will impact our jobs, our families, our economy, our environment, and our nation’s sovereignty…People from Hawaii and around the world are gathering tomorrow on Maui to protest this secret deal. They are sick and tired of multinational corporations benefiting on the broken backs of working class Americans and they will not stop until their voices are heard.”

gabbard

0

Amy’s Organics Opens Their First Fast Food Restaurant – Support Non-GMO, Non-Chemical Dependent Foods!

The crowds have been non-stop during the first week of business at a California fast food restaurant, with a twist. It’s a drive-through that is actually good for you.

It is the nation’s first organic drive-through restaurant. It has only been open five days and already it is struggling to keep up with demand.

Hungry customers at the new Amy’s drive thru were patient and determined to order lunch. The wait is really long. Some said they heard the wait was 20 minutes long.

The line inside the restaurant was almost out the door, all for a chance to try organic, vegetarian fast food.

Kelsea Baraga is trying a veggie Amy burger and brought her mom along to try it too.

“Processed foods definitely are big on my mind. My daughter keeps bugging me about going vegetarian,” customer Amy Braga said.

You won’t find burgers or fried chicken on the menu, but you will see healthier options such as vegan Mac ‘N’ Cheese and gluten free pizza.

“The actual demand has been a bit overwhelming,” Paul Schiefer from Amy’s Restaurant said.

Schiefer says the local company, which has been making frozen organic foods for years, never dreamed the restaurant would be such a hit.

“So many people have shown up and it’s giving us a lot of hope that this is a concept that works,” Schiefer said.

Carolyn and James Wasielewski came from Petaluma to check it out.

Carolyn said they came to “celebrate good food and be healthy.”

James is still skeptical. He had the vegetarian burrito and said, “It could be better, but it’s edible.”

The food is sustainably grown, including the roof. Employees are paid a living wage with health benefits.

If business stays like this Amy’s plans to open other drive-through across the Bay Area.

Screen Shot 2015-07-28 at 7.47.41 AM

0

Watch This Young Man Explain Bernie v. Hillary: This Kid is Amazing; WATCH


The Democratic Party Presidential Primaries have produced two clear candidates ready to battle in its early stages: Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders. Hillary is the obvious frontrunner, killing every other candidate in the polls, but Bernie Sanders is rapidly rising at second place.

This young man understands that this isn’t really any choice at all and does a great job of explaining the race to come.

Screen Shot 2015-07-20 at 4.03.48 AMScreen Shot 2015-05-20 at 6.39.49 AM

0

Maui’s right to know if Monsanto and Dow really are killing us has been Pre-empted by the long tentacles of Corporate Greed and Corruption. It’s on to appeals.

Federal Judge Rules Maui County Ban on GMO Crops Invalid
11650878_10207010365442793_2047422566_n
HONOLULU — Jun 30, 2015, 8:11 PM ET By AUDREY McAVOY Associated Press Plus More

A federal judge says a ban by Maui County on the cultivation of genetically engineered crops is pre-empted by federal and state law and invalid.

U.S. District Court Judge Susan Oki Mollway said in a ruling Tuesday that the ordinance creating the prohibition exceeds the county’s authority.

Maui County spokesman Rod Antone says the county will abide by the judge’s ruling.

Mollway emphasized that the ruling is not a statement on whether genetically modified organisms are beneficial or detrimental.

“The court recognizes the importance of questions about whether GE activities and GMOs pose risks to human health, the environment, and the economy, and about how citizens may participate in democratic processes,” she said. “But any court is a reactive body that addresses matters before it rather than reaching out to grab hold of whatever matters may catch a judge’s fancy because the matters are interesting, important, or of great concern to many people.”

“The court stresses again, so that no lay party has any misapprehension on this point, that it is ruling purely on legal grounds. No portion of this ruling says anything about whether GE organisms are good or bad or about whether the court thinks the substance of the Ordinance would be beneficial to the County.”

Maui voters passed the ordinance when they approved a ballot initiative last November. The measure imposes a moratorium on the growing of genetically engineered crops until scientific studies are conducted on their safety and benefits. The ordinance would only allow the moratorium to be lifted after a vote by the Maui County Council.

Mark Sheehan, one of five citizens who sponsored the ballot initiative, said his group will appeal the order. He expressed disappointment that Mollway ruled on what he called procedural issues instead of addressing the substance of their argument.

He said the ordinance was specifically written to address issues not found in state statue. Further, he said the law requires the county to protect the health of the environment and the public, said Sheehan, who is a member of the group Sustainable Hawaiian Agriculture for the Keiki and the Aina Movement, or SHAKA.

“That was lost on the judge, so we will have to move along and have to find justice for the constitutional rights of the people of Maui at another level,” he said.

Hawaii’s year-round warm weather makes the islands a favorite research spot for companies that use genetic engineering to develop new types of corn and other crops. The weather allows researchers to grow more generations of crops and accelerate their development of new varieties.

Monsanto has two farms in Maui County, on Maui and Molokai islands. Agrigenetics, which does business as Mycogen Seeds, has a farm on Molokai.

There has been little scientific evidence to prove that foods grown from engineered seeds are less safe than their conventional counterparts. But fears persist in Hawaii and elsewhere. In the islands, these concerns are compounded by worries about the companies’ use of pesticides.

The measure imposes a moratorium on the growing of genetically engineered crops until scientific studies are conducted on their safety and benefits. The ordinance would only allow the moratorium to be lifted after a vote by the Maui County Council.

Monsanto Co. and Dow Chemical Co. unit Agrigenetics Inc. have farms in the county to research genetically engineered crops.

Maui’s right to know if Monsanto and Dow really are killing us has been Pre-empted by the long tentacles of Corporate Greed and Corruption. It’s on to appeals.

0

“OutGrow Monsanto” GMO Free Maui’s Event, Visited by Neil Young, Daryl Hannah, Lukas and Micah Nelson.  Planting and Performance of Neil’s New Song “The Monsanto Years” Ensues.


We have marched against Monsanto. We have petitioned, we have testified, we have VOTED, and we have WON an election against Monsanto.

Saturday May 23rd, while the world marches against Monsanto, on Maui we go a step further: we actively work toward a Maui future without Monsanto.

We plant the solution to Out Grow Monsanto!

Join GMO Free Maui, Alika Atay, and Simpli Fresh Farms as we spend this world-wide day of action against Monsanto with our hands in the soil, planting food that will bring Maui one step closer to food sovereignty, and a future that doesn’t depend on predatory, toxic agriculture.

GMO Free Maui is also announcing new leadership this week, new goals for the coming year, and a new website and community involvement plan. Mahalo to hundreds of supporters who came to be a part of this incredible day!

11008637_10153214782861858_1506178486194856832_n

0

Bernie Sanders: Make Wall Street Pay Americans’ College Tuition

Screen Shot 2015-05-20 at 6.39.49 AM

Tuesday, 19 May 2015 11:15 PM By Jason Devaney, Guest Blogger

Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, who is running for president as a Democrat, announced a bill Tuesday that would provide a free four-year college education to all Americans.

According to USA Today, the plan would involve the federal government footing 67 percent of the annual cost, roughly $47 billion, while states would be forced to pony up the remaining 33 percent, which amounts to about $23 billion.

The plan applies to all four-year public colleges and universities.

The proposal, according to USA Today, would allow colleges to hire new staff and spend more money on students.

The federal money to pay for the program would come from Wall Street. A 0.5 percent speculation fee, reports USA Today, would be imposed on investment houses, hedge funds, and stock trades. There would be smaller fees on bonds and derivatives.

The average annual cost of a four-year public college or university has risen sharply since 2004, from $6,448 to $9,139, according to the College Board.

Sanders’ bill would also decrease the interest rate on student loans from 4.32 percent to 2.32 percent, reports USA Today.

New America Foundation senior policy analyst Iris Palmer told The Washington Post Sanders’ plan would not work.

“What happens at the next recession when the money from Wall Street drops and the number of students enrolling in college swells? How could a program like this be sustained?” Palmer said. “And how would you keep institutions from consistently increasing what they say it costs to educate a student?”

Sanders, 73, was a member of the House of Representatives from 1991-2007 before entering the Senate that year. He announced his candidacy for president last month.

Sanders, who says he is a “democratic Socialist,” said recently he would not take money from Super Pacs to fund his campaign.

“I don’t think we’re going to outspend Hillary Clinton or Jeb Bush or anybody else, but I think we are going to raise the kind of money that we need to run a strong and winning campaign,” Sanders said.

0

We, the jury: “Pioneer failed to follow generally accepted agricultural and management practices.”  Awards Kauai residents $500K  – Company officials are “Disappointed”.

tractor-webGet used to disappointment Dupont/Pioneer, Monsanto, Dow and all the others: This is just the beginning of the people fighting back against Big Ag’s illegal exploitation of Hawaii’s land and people.

To paraphrase the jury: Pioneer failed to follow generally accepted agricultural and management practices.   Pioneer’s farming operation was the legal cause of damage, significantly interfering with Waimea residents’ use and enjoyment of their property.

BAM!

Company officials are “disappointed”.   Screw them! They knew what they were doing and are criminals. Pioneer has done and is doing worse. This is just the beginning of the people fighting back.

A federal court jury awarded a total of $507,090 in damages to 15 Wai­mea residents who say they can’t enjoy their homes because of red dust from test fields operated by DuPont Pioneer on Kauai.

The average settlement per person awarded damages was $33,806 per person or $56,343 per household. Only 10 households took part in the trial portion, and the judgements awarded will be used in negotiations for a mass settlement for over 150 people and could total over $5 Million. Though it does not address the health and environmental impacts, which are our greatest concerns, today is a huge victory in the courts for all the people of Hawaii in Kauai, Maui, Molokai and Oahu who are affected by the chemical test fields. This is the first class action lawsuit against the chemical companies regarding the pesticide dust and we doubt it will be the last. Expect an appeal from the DuPont/Pioneer legal team who spent some of the case having giggling exchanges and cracking quiet jokes to each other in the courtroom.
After a four-week trial, the seven-member jury reached its verdict Friday: $191,315 for property damage and $315,775 for loss of use and enjoyment of property.
The residents filed lawsuits in 2011 and 2012 against the seed company formerly called Pioneer Hi-Bred International Inc. in state court on Kauai, claiming the red dust from the company’s Wai­mea Research Center field caused extensive damage to their properties, but both cases were moved to federal court in Hono­lulu.

After the verdict, residents’ attorney Patrick Kyle Smith said he was elated for his clients. “We hope it makes things better in Wai­mea,” said Smith outside the courtroom.

DuPont Pioneer’s attorney, Clem­ent Glynn, declined to comment on the verdict. But in an emailed statement, DuPont Pioneer spokes­woman Laurie Yoshida said company officials are disappointed in the verdict and will evaluate their options in the coming days.

 

0

THE ORGANIC EFFECT: What happens when a family that usually doesn’t eat organic food suddenly starts? Startling Results!

Screen Shot 2015-05-07 at 3.44.30 PM
Want to know what happens in your body when you switch from eating conventional food to organic? Watch this! The study was conducted by the Swedish Environmental Research Institute IVL, and the full report is available here:
https://www.coop.se/organiceffect

From COOP.SE:
We wanted to know more about what happens in the body when switching from conventional to organic food. The result was so interesting that we made a film to share with the masses.  We want to inspire more people to eat organic – we think it’s good for both people and the environment.

The study shows that choosing organic food can reduce the level of pesticides in the body. When the family switched to organic food, both the occurrence and the number of pesticides were reduced.

Read MORE:

 

0

Union Of 30,000 Doctors In Latin America Wants Monsanto Banned!  ““We believe the precautionary principle should be applied…”

It was announced this week that over 30,000 doctors and health experts throughout Latin America are demanding that Monsanto’s products be banned. One of the primary cases that these doctors are bringing against Monsanto is the recent confirmation that their main herbicide RoundUp is actually responsible for causing cancer.

Hokua w sign 3

“In our country glyphosate is applied on more than 28 million hectares. Each year, the soil is sprayed with more than 320 million liters, which means that 13 million people are at risk of being affected, according to the Physicians Network of Sprayed Peoples (RMPF),” Argentina’s union of medical professionals, Fesprosa said in a statement.

The Fesprosa union is comprised of over 30,000 medical health professionals, most of whom wish to enact the ban on Monsanto products, and specifically the chemical glyphosate, the active chemical in RoundUp.

“We believe the precautionary principle should be applied, and that we should stop accumulating studies and take decisions that could come too late. We advocate a ban on glyphosate which should take effect in the short term with restrictions on purchasing, spraying and packaging,” Javier Souza, coordinator of Latin American pesticide action network said.

We cannot allow the business interests of a North American multinational to be more important than the health of the people of our region. Governments should promote the technology and practices of organic farming to protect growers, consumers and the environment,” Franco Segesso, coordinator of the campaign at Greenpeace Andino said.

As we reported earlier this year, Monsanto is continuing to lose profits into the second quarter of 2015, shedding an exceptional 15% profit amid falling GMO seed sales — even more than most experts projected.


John Vibes writes for True Activist and is an author, researcher and investigative journalist who takes a special interest in the counter culture and the drug war.
Read More: http://www.trueactivist.com/union-of-30000-doctors-in-latin-america-wants-monsanto-banned/?utm_source=fb&utm_medium=fb&utm_campaign=antimedia

0

Mayor Arakawa wants PUBLIC TO PAY $400,000 for NON-SCIENTIFIC, FAKE “GMO STUDY”  $50K from Maui. Testimony needed this week to STOP THIS CHARADE

Thanks to the wonderful Autumn Rae Ness:monsanto-puppet

Phone calls and testimony needed from NOW until FRIDAY.

The Mayor proposed a line item grant for $50,000 to the State Department of Agriculture to be used as matching funds (meaning the State would throw in $50k as well) for participation in a “GMO study”.

a. Since the proposal was first received by the Council, a few important facts have come to light. ie:

i. Turns out this is not a “study” at all, but instead a Joint Fact Finding working group (JFF) being led by a mediation company called Accord 3.0.

One look at their website and you will learn that they are not led by scientists qualified to conduct a GMO study, but are instead “social scientists” specializing in mediation and negotiation problem solving.

The website admits that this “JFF group will not produce original research.”

This is important to note because what we really need is original research, soil and water samples and a study that is specific to what is occurring here, in Hawaii.

Given the track record of these companies, with this kind of a fact finding group, and in the absence of any new, Maui specific data, Monsanto and Dow will pressure the group to find “no harm” and then use that against any future oversight, on county AND state levels. When dealing with these companies, it’s actually dangerous to participate in any study in which the integrity of the data isn’t carefully protected.

ii. DOA is requesting matching funds to extend this JFF Statewide from what is already underway for Kauai. In doing the math that is a grand total of $400k for a Statewide JFF, that will give us absolutely no new data specific to Hawaii for the chemical testing operations conducting business here today.

iii. Currently, (2) Council members (Cochran & Couch) have “proviso’d” the $50k line item to read: “Provided that the $50k shall be used for a GMO study and shall not be used for a JFF or for mediation services.”

The members have requested a response from the Office of Economic Development, as to whether or not this type of provision would be accepted by the DOA.

If the response is not returned in the affirmative, the plan is then to recommend deletion of the funding all together.

How you can help?

1) Testify in person any day this week at 9:00 a.m., in the Council chambers- that the $50,000 line item to State DOA not be used to fund mediation services or a JFF, but instead shall be used to fund an EIS, specific to Hawaii that collects soil and water samples around the Monsanto and Dow test fields and their effects.

2) Testify my email: This week BF.Committee@mauicounty.us

3) Politely call the member’s offices this week to express the same sentiments.

Baisa 270-7939

Carroll 270-7246

Crivello 270-7678

Guzman 270-5501

Hokama 270-7768

Victorino 270-7760

White 270-5507

3

“MAUI CAUSES” TV Show (From Earthday) Replays Sunday On Akaku Ch 55 at 7PM  New Show Monday at 7PM: Dr. Lorin Pang confronts the EPA!


Join us as we tour Maui’s Earth Day Festival

Learn what’s new with The Kū`ē Petition, Locals for Local Change,
Go Green Hawaii, Maui Farmer’s Union United, The SHAKA Movement,
Trinette Furtado, Ke’eaumoku Kapu and Alika Atay

New Shows EVERY MONDAY at 7PM with Replay SUNDAY at 7PM
Live Stream on the Web on AKAKU BLUE CH55 at http://akaku.org/akaku-channel-live-stream/

We’re looking for Underwriters for this show.
Call Sam Small at (973) 271 0788
It’s a great way to get in the public eye and support a variety of
Maui’s Environmental, Progressive and Cultural causes.MC-on-Akaku

2

Years of research in Hilo and Manoa has revealed shocking secret facts about the people who are paid to run the Manoa Astronomy department for the illegal state of Hawaii.

We received this anonymously and pass it on with no warranties… Ain’t The Web Great!

chancellor-hero

Is it true that? 1:
Is it true that: UH Manoa Director of UH Astronomy Gunter Hasenger makes $300,000.00 a year for his main work to build TMT?  And what does he do with his 5 Million dollar budget? Who gets paid from that budget? Is TMT his reason for being in Hawaii? University of Hawaii Executive Management Salaries http://www.uhpa.org/salary-research/executive-management-salaries/
Is it true that: Instead of hiring locally HI taxpayers paid all of the lawyers bills to get this German Director his US citizenship so he could move here to build TMT?  Has he ever hired a Hawaiian ever?
Is it true that:  Manoa Associate Director of Astronomy Roberto Mclaren makes $220,000 a year salary and his main work is supporting TMT?

Is it true that? 2:

Is it true that: UH Manoa Astronomy Department is actually receiving military money for some telescopes? (Like $80 million dollar for the panstar telescope)
Is it true that: ALL “panstar” telescope pictures actually goes to a “Top Secret” Classified Department of defense facility?(wow)
Is it true that: UH Manoa Astronomy Department assistent Director Michael Mabary, a person in the news and at big telescope deal meetings, is not really an astronomer? Is it true he really works at a major classified Air Force facility? Auwe!
Is it true that: Mabary works with House Speaker Suki and the US military?
Why do our state taxes support Mr. Mabary and his work at a US military facility through Manoa Astronomy? What is the real backroom deal? Should the people of the illegal state of HI allow this?
Did the UH president Lassner previously run this very same major top secret classified military facility?
Did House Speaker Souki and Governor Ige recently send UH Manoa Astronomy Director Hasenger $3 Million dollars for a telescope on Mauna a Wakea?
Why Does Manoa Astronomy Director Hasenger’s budget pay for Director Mabery’s salary when he works at a military facility?
Why does a state funded UH Manoa Astronomy department support Military projects on stolen lands and pay its directors to work at and to develop military facilities?  Is this what we pay state taxes for? Auwe!

Is it true that? 3:

Is it true what civil beat claims: Director of Manoa Astronomy Administration Karen Ehrhorn lied to get her job and is not really a certified CPA but is still being paid $150,000 a year by Director Hasenger to sit at home and keep quiet? link UH Exec Who Allegedly Lied About Accounting Credential Still on Job – Civil Beat http://www.civilbeat.com/2013/10/20065-uh-exec-who-allegedly-lied-about-accounting-credential-still-on-job/
Is it true what civil beat claims: Director of IFA Administration Ehrhorn has been unlicensed for decades and is still today on UH Manoa Hasengers payroll at $150,000 and “works” at home for Astronomy director Hasenger? Why is she protected by Hasenger and what secrets does she know about TMT?
Is it true that: Manoa faculty repeatedly ask for budget details and are refused information because UH budgets are a dirty secret known only to Directors?

Is it true that? 4:

Is it true that: The Canadian Military is involved in TMT?
Is it also true that the Canadians are building the “Special” enclosure for the TMT?
Is it true that: Several global nuclear superpowers that are TPP treaty signers are donating hundreds of millions of dollars to TMT?Why? Is this a coincidence?
THERE IS MORE. THIS IS JUST 1-4

The UH Regents and or president can SHUT THIS DOWN: The affairs of the University of Hawai‘i fall under the general management and control of the Board of Regents, pursuant to Article X, Hawai‘i State Constitution, and Chapter 304A, Hawai‘i Revised Statutes. The board formulates policy and exercises control over the university through its executive officer, the university president (Lassner)

THERE IS MORE!
THIS IS ALL FOR NOW!

0

Lawyers’ emails revealed in the Monsanto vs. Maui lawsuit: More Stalling while We on Maui are Exposed to God Knows What…

NoMoreFakeNews Exclusive: lawyers’ emails revealed in the Monsanto vs. Maui lawsuit

Monsanto/Dow still refuse to open up secret court documents

trash-justiceThink about it. You’re locked in a high-stakes lawsuit against major corporations, and you can’t see document-material the corporations have filed in order to make their argument with the Judge.The Judge has seen the redacted blacked-out material, and she will, in part, base her ruling in the case on it. There is no jury.

But you can’t see the blacked-out material, you can’t argue your position with full knowledge.

Welcome to a rigged process.

As my readers know, I exposed the fact that, in the Monsanto/Dow vs. Maui lawsuit, the corporations filed documents with the court that contained large amounts of blacked-out redacted material.

The lawyers representing the people, whose vote to block Monsanto/Dow experiments in Maui was suspended by this lawsuit, have not yet seen those redacted lines and paragraphs.

Therefore, they can’t argue their case from full knowledge.

In the last few days, one of the lawyers, Sharon Kim, who represents the Shaka Movement against Monsanto/Dow, made a request to Nick Kacprowski, a lead attorney for Monsanto/Dow, to see the redacted material.

Their exchange of emails concludes with Kacprowski writing:

“We should note that nothing in this message should be construed as conceding that Shaka has any right to access the sealed information. For example, Plaintiffs [Monsanto, Dow, and others] are concerned by the hostility that Shaka has shown toward the [GMO] seed companies in the past and thus by the risk that it will use this confidential and sensitive information publicly for improper purposes.”

Absurd. How Shaka “would use this material” is a speculative hypothetical. The material’s relevance to the lawsuit can only be assessed by allowing Shaka’s lawyers to read it.

The Judge in the federal case, Susan Oki Mollway, should long ago have ordered that the redactions be removed.


Here is the email exchange. The first email is from attorney Sharon Kim, representing the Shaka Movement. The reply is from Nick Kacprowski, representing Monsanto/Dow. His reply is dense with legalese, but you’ll get the point of it.

Nick,

This email is serves as a request for unredacted copies of the documents that were filed under seal in Civ No. 14-00511. As you are aware, our Opening Brief for the Ninth Circuit Appeal is due on April 30, 2015, and we need the unredacted documents to aid in the preparation of our Opening Brief. Thus, we are requesting copies of the unredacted documents by Wednesday, April 22nd. Please let me know if you have any questions.

Thanks,
Sharon

Sharon A. Lim
Bays Lung Rose & Holma

From: Nick Kacprowski […]
Sent: Tuesday, April 21, 2015 5:02 PM
To: Sharon A. Lim […]
Subject: Re: Ito v. County of Maui

Dear Sharon:

This will respond to your request that Plaintiffs provide Shaka with unredacted versions of the sealed documents in this case by April 22. As you know, Plaintiffs have filed a Motion to Vacate the Expedited Briefing Schedule on your appeal, Case No. 15-15641. As our motion notes, your appeal of the preliminary injunction order will be mooted when the Court rules on the merits of the pending summary judgment motion, which it has indicated it will do by the end of June. If the Ninth Circuit grants the Motion to Vacate, Shaka will have no need for the unredacted documents in the near future, and possibly never, in order to pursue an appeal in this case.

Our proposal is that the parties stipulate to a protective order that provides that the sealed documents will remain sealed, without access for Shaka, unless the Ninth Circuit denies Plaintiffs’ motion that the briefing schedule should be vacated in Case No. 15-15641. It makes sense to defer Shaka’s request to access the sealed documents given that: 1) the sealed documents contain highly sensitive and proprietary information; 2) there is no protective order in place and there will be tricky issues to work out regarding what, if any, information in the documents Shaka should be allowed to access and what the restrictions governing the use of the documents will be; and 3) the Ninth Circuit’s ruling on the Motion to Vacate may soon moot the issue of needing those documents for the appellate record.

We realize that Shaka’s appellate brief is due on April 30, 2015, and that the Ninth Circuit may not rule on the Motion to Vacate before then. Therefore we are amenable to stipulating to extend the time to file Shaka’s appellate brief until 30 days after the Ninth Circuit rules on the Motion to Vacate. If the Ninth Circuit denies the Motion to Vacate, we can then meet and confer further about your request.

We should note that nothing in this message should be construed as conceding that Shaka has any right to access the sealed information. For example, Plaintiffs are concerned by the hostility that Shaka has shown toward the seed companies in the past and thus by the risk that it will use this confidential and sensitive information publicly for improper purposes.

Please let me know if you agree with this proposal, and we can prepare the draft protective order. If not, please let me know if there is a time tomorrow when we can meet and confer in person or by telephone about this issue.

Best Regards,
Nick

Justice? Transparency? Never heard of it.

Jon Rappoport

The author of three explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED, EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, and POWER OUTSIDE THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. He maintains a consulting practice for private clients, the purpose of which is the expansion of personal creative power. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free emails at NoMoreFakeNews.com or OutsideTheRealityMachine.

0

The Resistance Rises: Monsanto Sued in LA County for False Advertising Claim That Glyphosate Targets Only Plants, Not People or Pets

Glyphosate was originally patented as an antibiotic. It kills beneficial bacteria in everyone’s guts and in women’s vaginas. That ain’t just plants.

734bd7e40fc212322a3d9263e6a56771

Exhibit #1
T. Matthew Phillips Source: www.examiner.com

Today a class action lawsuit was filed in Los Angeles County, California against the Monsanto corporation. The suit alleges that Monsanto is guilty of false advertising by claiming that glyphosate, the active ingredient in Roundup, targets an enzyme only found in plants and not in humans or animals. Monsanto makes this claim to support the contention that glyphosate is harmless to humans.

In the lawsuit, the argument is made that the targeted enzyme, EPSP synthase, is found in the microbiota which reside in our intestines and therefore this enzyme is found in humans and animals. It is further stated in the lawsuit that there are many human and animal health problems associated with the disruption of our intestinal microbes.

“Because it kills-off our gut bacteria, glyphosate is linked to stomach and bowel problems, indigestion, ulcers, colitis, gluten intolerance, sleeplessness, lethargy, depression, Crohn’s Disease, Celiac Disease, allergies, obesity, diabetes, infertility, liver disease, renal failure, autism, Alzheimer’s, endocrine disruption, and the W.H.O. recently announced glyphosate is ‘probably carcinogenic’.”

The International Agency for Research on Cancer, part of the World Health Organization (WHO), last month declared that glyphosate is Group 2A carcinogen. The American Cancer Society quickly followed suit, also listing glyphosate as a Group 2A carcinogen.

An Environmental Protection Agency memo dated October 30, 1991 states that the EPA classified glyphsate as a possible carcinogen in 1985. In this 1991 memo, without any justification, this classification was changed to Not Carcinogenic. Three scientists refused to sign, two of whom wrote beside their name: Do Not Concur. This document contains data that clearly shows a statistically significant increase in tumors in laboratory animals treated with glyphosate. But because there weren’t more tumors in the group of animals who received a higher dose of glyphosate than there were in the group that received a lower dose, Monsanto made the claim that the tumors could not be related to glyphosate.

Today’s lawsuit may be the beginning of an avalanche. Earlier this month, Beijing resident Yang Xiao-lu filed a lawsuit against the Chinese Ministry of Agriculture requesting information disclosure of the toxicology report submitted to the Chinese government for glyphosate pesticide registration in China. The case has been accepted and the collegiate panel of the court has informed the plaintiff that, considering that Monsanto is a stakeholder to the case, they have added Monsanto as an involved party to the case. Chinese citizens had previously petitioned the Ministry of Agriculture for this toxicology report but were denied. The Ministry cited “trade secrets” as the reason for denial. It is difficult to comprehend how a toxicology report would contain trade secrets since trade secrets generally constitute ingredients or a recipe for a compound or manufacturing procedure.

In today’s lawsuit, Monsanto is accused of deliberate falsification to conceal the fact that glyphosate is harmful to humans and animals. “Defendant intentionally misleads consumers by misrepresenting and concealing the true and correct facts concerning glyphosate…” Attorney T. Matthew Phillips says, “We are not trying to prove that Roundup is harmful or carcinogenic, we are merely pointing out that Monsanto is lying about the enzymes that Roundup targets. Roundup kills the weeds in your backyard and the weeds in your stomach.”

Judgment is sought against Monsanto to prohibit the company from continuing to make the claim that glyphosate targets an enzyme not found in humans and for compensation to the plaintiffs, including attorney fees.

Residents of California can become members of the class in this action by contacting T. Matthew Phillips attmatthewphillips@aol.com. Phillips has indicated that he hopes other attorneys in other states will follow suit [pun intended].

0

Neil Young Announces Monsanto-Themed LP Recorded With Willie Nelson’s Sons

The Monsanto Years features a song called “Rock Starbucks”

By Jeremy Gordon, Guest Blogger

8c203274

Neil Young has teamed up with Promise of the Real, a band featuring Lukas and Micah Nelson (sons of the legendary Willie Nelson), to record an album titled The Monsanto Years, as Rolling Stone reports. As you might guess, the album is composed of songs criticizing food industry giant Monsanto, which Young has spoken out against for years. The record will be out June 16, with Young and Promise of the Real touring to support it. (Band of Horses will open on a handful of dates.) Check out their schedule below.

Some songs that might appear on the album debuted at a recent show in San Luis Obispo, California. They include titles such as “Rock Starbucks”, “Monsanto Years”, “Too Big to Fail”, and “Seeds”, as fan site Sugar Mountain points out. Below, you can watch a few videos from that show, comprising some of the new songs along with older ones like “Walk On”, via Stereogum.

Last year, Young urged his fans to boycott Starbucks over their alleged ties to Monsanto.

0

ACTION ALERT: This is our last day to get a hearing scheduled for HCR 53 “Free and Fair Elections” resolution to begin to repeal Citizen’s United thought a Constitutional Convention.

This is our last day to get a hearing scheduled for HCR 53 the “Free and Fair Elections” resolution.

Please call Hawaii State Senator Gil Keith-Agaran right now.  Tell the nice staff person that you are a Hawaii citizen, and that you encourage him to schedule a hearing for HCR 53, the “Free and Fair Elections” resolution, by the end of the day TODAY. Keep it short and simple! (remember to call as a HI citizen and a mother, father, teacher, etc).

Call Senator Gil Keith-Agaran right now:   808-586-7344
We can achieve victory if you’re willing to join us today and make this one call.

b8c3aee30c54342c8b03abbe6e46c4eeOur Ultimate Goal:

To restore true, representative democracy in the United States by pressuring our State Legislators to pass a much needed Free and Fair Elections Amendment to our Constitution.  There are only 2 ways to amend the Constitution. (1) Go through our Federal Government  (2) Go through our State Legislators via an amendments convention of the states.

Wolf PAC believes that we can no longer count on our Federal Government to do what is in the best interest of the American people due to the unfettered amount of money they receive from outside organizations to fund their campaigns. We point to the failure of the Disclose Act as rock solid evidence that this would be a total waste of our time, effort, and money.  We also point to the recent decision by the US Supreme Court to not even hear a case filed by Montana claiming it did not have to abide by Citizens United, as proof that state legislation is not a sufficient measure to solve this problem.   We believe that we have no choice but to put an amendment in the hands of our State Legislators, who are not, at this moment in time, completely blinded by the influence of money and might actually do what 96% of the country wants…take away the massive influence that money has over our political process.
Mike, Wolf-PAC
http://www.wolf-pac.com/

P.S.  Call Senator Gilbert Keith-Agaran as a Hawaii citizen and request a hearing for HCR 53. He is the chair of the committee our resolution is in.   808-586-7344

0

Judge Mollway to Maui Voters and all of Hawaii: “F@#k You. You Don’t Count. Neither Does Your State Constitution”

NoMoreFakeNews.comOn April 15, Federal Judge Susan Oki Mollway dropped a bomb in Monsanto vs. Maui.She ruled that the case cannot go to Hawaii State Court, but will remain under her federal jurisdiction.The federal government’s support for Monsanto is even greater than the State Government of Hawaii’s.

And the will of Maui County voters—to put a temporary block on Monsanto’s toxic, local, GMO/pesticide experiments—is now diluted at a new remote level.

Maui County can’t enforce the vote, and neither can the State of Hawaii. Now a federal court will decide whether to nullify the will of Maui voters.

This is dictatorship.

Among the obvious reasons for refusing to allow this matter to be settled at a state level, there is a hidden factor: a guiding principle invoked in the Hawaii State Constitution:

“Each person has the right to a clean and healthful environment, as defined by laws relating to environmental quality, including control of pollution and conservation, protection and enhancement of natural resources. Any person may enforce this right against any party, public or private, through appropriate legal proceedings, subject to reasonable limitations and regulation as provided by law.”

“For the benefit of present and future generations, the State and its political subdivisions shall conserve and protect Hawaii’s natural beauty and all natural resources, including land, water, air, minerals and energy sources, and shall promote the development and utilization of these resources in a manner consistent with their conservation and in furtherance of the self-sufficiency of the State.”

That’s what Judge Mollway is avoiding—the possibility that, at the State level, a Hawaii court might base its decision on this principle of protecting the land and the people, and therefore rule that Monsanto’s GMO/pesticide human experimentation must stop.

It comes down to:

“We, the voters of Maui, decided—”

“We, the federal court, don’t care what you voted on or decided. It’s null and void. Go home. We rule. You’re irrelevant.”

No need to rig the vote. Just cancel it retroactively. As any police state would.

Jon Rappoport

The author of three explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED, EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, and POWER OUTSIDE THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. He maintains a consulting practice for private clients, the purpose of which is the expansion of personal creative power. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free emails at NoMoreFakeNews.com or OutsideTheRealityMachine.

3

So Much for Monsanto Feeding The World: U.S. Forced to Import Corn as Shoppers Demand Organic Food

by Alan Bjerga, Guest Blogger Bloomberg.com
April 15, 2015
1200x-1
Who’s Supplying the U.S. With Organic Corn?

A growing demand for organics, and the near-total reliance by U.S. farmers on genetically modified corn and soybeans, is driving a surge in imports from other nations where crops largely are free of bioengineering.

Imports such as corn from Romania and soybeans from India are booming, according to an analysis of U.S. trade data released Wednesday by the Organic Trade Association and Pennsylvania State University.

That shows a potential market for U.S. growers willing to avoid the use of artificial chemicals and genetically modified seeds, said Laura Batcha, chief executive officer of the association, which includes Whole Foods Market Inc., Whitewave Foods Co. and Earthbound Farm LLC.

The report is “a help-wanted sign” for U.S. farmers, Batcha said. “There are market distortions that are pretty striking.”

Most of the corn and soybean shipments become feed for chickens and cows so they can be certified organic under U.S. Department of Agriculture guidelines. Organic poultry and dairy operators shun feed made with seeds from Monsanto Co. and other domestic suppliers in favor of foreign products even as the U.S. remains the world’s top grower of corn and soybeans.

As a result, imports to the U.S. of Romanian corn rose to $11.6 million in 2014 from $545,000 the year before. Soybean imports from India more than doubled to $73.8 million.
Rapid Growth

Sales of foods certified by the U.S. as free of synthetic chemicals or genetic engineering reached $35.9 billion in 2014, an 11 percent increase over 2013 and about 5.1 percent of U.S. grocery spending. The organic sector’s average annual growth of about 10 percent is triple that of overall food sales, according to U.S. Department of Agriculture and trade association data.

Rising consumer demand in what’s been a niche market is creating shortages, pushing companies that supply farms needing organic feed to seek out foreign sources.

About 90 percent of U.S. corn and soy is bioengineered, thus automatically ineligible for the organic label.

Just north of the Minnesota-Iowa border, on a dirt road closed to heavy truck traffic by the late-spring mud, Hy View Feeds has seen its sales quadruple since winning organic certification a decade ago. Unlike nearby conventional feed stores that buys mostly from suppliers within a half-hour drive, Hy View gets some from Canada, more than 500 miles from its Mabel headquarters, to make up for domestic shortages.
Limited Data

“It’s a market that not everyone is going to get into because it’s done on a different scale,” said Kit VandeMark, owner and founder of Hy View, which categorizes its feeds as conventional, organic and non-GMO. “So we end up with both buyers and sellers from a broader area.”

The USDA only began collecting data on organic crops in 2011. Most of what’s tracked is fresh produce and major grains – – processed foods and meats, for example, aren’t reported in an organic category.

The four years of records show rapidly growing trade relationships. In 2014, U.S. organic exports were $553 million, almost quadruple the 2011 total. Imports last year were $1.28 billion, led by $332.5 million of organic coffee.

Imports of two crops, corn and soybeans, that also are the leading U.S. exports underscore gaps in the market, said Miles McEvoy, deputy administrator of the USDA’s National Organic Program.
Romania, China

Soybeans are the second-biggest U.S. organic import, with $184 million shipped last year. India is the No. 1 source, followed by China. For corn, with overall sales of $35.7 million in 2014, Romania is the biggest seller to the U.S., followed by Turkey, the Netherlands and Canada.

The totals are tiny compared with the combined $92.7 billion value of the two crops last year. That also means that the domestic market could easily meet organic needs, McEvoy said. In reality, U.S. farming isn’t structured to meet some of its highest-dollar consumers’ needs, he said.

“There just hasn’t been enough development of the organic feed supply in the U.S.,” he said. Organic-foods certifiers are in short supply in some regions, he said.

A requirement that all organic farms be free of non-organic seeds and chemicals for three years means farmers give up profit before gaining any price benefit. Recent high prices that fed record farm profits also gave growers less reason to switch, he said.
Organic Prices

“If there were a market incentive for more people to produce organic corn, there would be more of it,” said Paul Bertels, vice president for production and utilization with the National Corn Growers Association in St. Louis. Even though organic corn is selling for about $12.50 a bushel, more than triple the cash price for regular corn, lower yields and the three-year transition period makes GMO- and synthetics-free grain not worth the risk, he said.

“It’s not worth the headache or the cost” for most producers, he said.

In some cases, nations where farming is less industrial are seizing the advantage. Genetically modified seeds are largely absent from Romania and Ukraine, putting their farmers closer to organic certification for sales in the U.S., McEvoy said.

Still, as commodity prices tumble and growers seek higher profit margins, U.S. farmers may seek out more organic acreage, said Lynn Clarkson, founder of Clarkson Grain Co. in Cerro Gordo, Illinois.

“With the markets at break-even prices for many farmers, we’re seeing more interest in organic land,” he said. “I’m not predicting a tidal wave, but I’m seeing twice as much interest in this as I have in the past.”

0

Alarming New Study: Insecticide contamination of global surface waters substantially higher than expected

Agricultural insecticides threaten surface waters at the global scale

Date: April 14, 2015 Source: Universität Koblenz-Landau  ScienceDaily.com

Summary:
A new study evaluated for the first time comprehensive global insecticide contamination data for agricultural surface waters using the legally-accepted regulatory threshold levels (RTLs) as defined during the official pesticide authorization procedures. The results are alarming: more than 40% of the water-phase samples with a detection of an insecticide concentration, exceeded respective RTLs. Concerning the exposure of sediments (i.e., deposits at the bottom of the surface water bodies), more than 80% of the insecticide concentrations exceeded RTLs, which, however, often are less binding from a regulatory perspective. Overall, the results of this study indicate that insecticides pose substantial threats to the biodiversity of global agricultural surface waters and that the current regulatory risk assessment schemes and pesticide authorzsation procedures fail to protect the aquatic environment.

150414083714-large

A study performed at the Institute for Environmental Science of the University of Koblenz-Landau evaluated for the first time comprehensive global insecticide contamination data for agricultural surface waters using the legally-accepted regulatory threshold levels (RTLs) as defined during the official pesticide authorization procedures. The results are alarming: more than 40% of the water-phase samples with a detection of an insecticide concentration, exceeded respective RTLs. Concerning the exposure of sediments (i.e., deposits at the bottom of the surface water bodies), more than 80% of the insecticide concentrations exceeded RTLs, which, however, often are less binding from a regulatory perspective. Overall, the results of this study indicate that insecticides pose substantial threats to the biodiversity of global agricultural surface waters and that the current regulatory risk assessment schemes and pesticide authorization procedures fail to protect the aquatic environment.

The results of this study fundamentally challenge the current regulatory risk assessment procedures for pesticides and indicate threats to the freshwater biodiversity at the global scale. “Potential reasons for these findings are failures of current risk assessment procedures or farmers` non-adherence to pesticide application prescriptions” says Ralf Schulz, one of the authors of this study. Fundamentally reforming global conventional agricultural systems and the adoption of promising approaches from organic farming are possible ways to meet the twin challenges of providing sufficient food for a growing human population and reversing the adverse impacts of agricultural pesticides on global ecosystems such as surface waters.

The environmental risk assessment for pesticides, which is mandatorily conducted by regulatory agencies prior to their authorization, is generally perceived as highly elaborated. These risk assessment procedures should ensure that the agricultural pesticide applications do not lead to unacceptable adverse effects on aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems or on the human health. During the authorization procedure of a given pesticide, a specific concentration level (i.e., the RTL) is defined at which the ecological effects are considered to be acceptable, e.g., at which no unacceptable effects on the ecological integrity of surface waters and aquatic organisms are expected to occur. After a pesticide is authorized and in use, farmers must adhere to specific application prescriptions, e.g. a 20 m no-spray buffer zone next to a surface water body. These prescriptions should ensure that the RTL is not exceeded in the field. In essence, pesticide registration in the US or the EU is granted only if all risk assessment requirements are met and assuming that farmers adhere to the respective application prescriptions. However, it is important to note that the RTLs defined during the prospective pesticide authorization procedures do not denote official water quality criteria as the regulatory risk assessment is based on the assumption that these RTL are never exceeded in the field due to the comprehensive risk assessment schemes and farmers application prescriptions.

The meta-analysis performed by the researchers from the University Koblenz-Landau considered 28 insecticide compounds, of which the majority is currently authorized in the EU or the US, respectively, and it comprised in total 11,300 insecticide concentrations detected in more than 2,500 surface water sites located in 73 countries and that were reported between 1962 and 2012 in 838 peer-reviewed, scientific studies. Overall, 8,166 insecticide concentrations were detected in the water-phase and 3,134 in sediments of global water bodies. However, out of all 11,300 insecticide concentrations, more than 52% (5,915 cases, more than 68.5% of the surface water sites analyzed) exceeded the RTL, in parts up to a factor of 10,000 and beyond. According to the authors, these findings indicate substantial threats to global surface waters as insecticide concentrations equaling the RTL (i.e., those considered still acceptable from a regulatory perspective) already led to a 30% reduction of freshwater biodiversity.

The researchers from the University Koblenz-Landau list in their study several reasons why the actual situation in the field potentially is even worse: First, insecticide contamination data could be retrieved for only about 10% of global agricultural surface waters, which indicates that there is no scientific knowledge on the insecticide contamination of surface waters in large parts of the world, especially concerning Russia or large parts of South America. Moreover, insecticide concentrations in surface waters are very hard to detect as they occur even in highly contaminated surface waters only very briefly, i.e. only during a few days per year. However, due to the high toxicity of insecticides for aquatic organisms, these short-term peak concentrations, which occur repeatedly each year in agricultural surface waters, lead to substantial and long-lasting adverse effects on aquatic communities. Further on, in more than 80% of the samples that were analyzed for various pesticide compounds, more than one, in some cases even up to 30 further pesticides were detected. Although the resulting adverse effects of these pesticide mixtures potentially are substantially higher compared to those of single compounds, they are, however, not considered in the regulatory risk assessment procedures. In general, aquatic organisms are highly susceptible already to insecticide surface water concentrations far below benchmark levels defined, for example, those for drinking water. However, as stated above, legally binding environmental quality criteria are available for only very few insecticide compounds.

The study, that was just published in the scientific journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, evaluated also whether newer insecticide compounds pose lower risks to surface waters compared to older compounds. However, the opposite was true: Newer, increasingly used insecticides, such as pyrethroids, exceeded the regulatory threshold levels by even 66%, whereas the older and due to other environmental concerns currently banned or less frequently used organochlorine insecticide compounds, led to only 24% RTL exceedances. The authors conclude that the acute environmental risk for surface waters apparently even increased with the development of newer insecticide classes. In addition, the risks of insecticides for aquatic ecosystems are unacceptably high even in highly regulated countries such as the EU or the US although currently used major pesticide legislations were enforced in the regions already at the beginning of the 1990s. Moreover, an in-depth analysis showed that in less regulated countries (e.g., countries in Africa or Asia), 42% of the insecticide concentrations exceeded the RTL; surprisingly, this figure is only slightly lower (i.e., 40% RTL exceedances) in highly regulated countries such as the US, EU, Canada, Japan or Australia.


Story Source:

The above story is based on materials provided by Universität Koblenz-Landau. Note: Materials may be edited for content and length.


Journal Reference:

  1. Sebastian Stehle, Ralf Schulz. Agricultural insecticides threaten surface waters at the global scale. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 2015; 201500232 DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1500232112

0

NEW SCANDAL FOR USDA & MONSANTO: Whistle Blowers at USDA say MONSANTO Influences Agency Suppression of Critical Science.

130604_US_Monsanto_MapThis petition, filed by the watchdog group Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER), demands that the USDA reform its so-called “scientific integrity policy,” which PEER claims contains broad language that enables the agency’s managers to suppress and alter research that has negative policy implications for big business, regardless of its merit.

The petition alleges that companies like Monsanto “have access to top agency managers” and are “invited to lodge complaints” about the work of USDA scientists.

In response, USDA scientists told PEER that managers order employees not to publish data and even rewrite and retract some scientific papers, while indefinitely delaying the approval of others. Scientists producing work that could cause regulatory headaches for the industry faced disciplinary actions and lengthy, intimidating investigations.

“If true, this is a major scandal at the USDA,” wrote Gary Ruskin, director of the pro- labeling group US Right to Know, in a March 30 letter to the US House and Senate agricultural committees demanding an investigation. “It is not the proper role of the USDA to engage in a cover up for Monsanto and other agrichemical companies.”

READ MORE At Truth-Out.org

From The Petition:

“The stated purpose of USDA’s scientific integrity policy is to ensure “the highest level of integrity in all aspects of the executive branch’s involvement with scientific and technological processes and analyses.” However, the Policy fails to clearly prohibit political suppression and interference.  While the Policy defines political suppression and interference, it does not include these acts in its definition of misconduct. The USDA, by its own admission, has yet to develop procedures for handling scientific integrity complaints.

Further, unlike many of its sister federal agencies, the USDA scientific integrity policy lacks any process or mechanism for preventing politically motivated suppression or for challenging it once it occurs.

Moreover, there are no cogent safeguards for whistleblowers in the Policy, which contains no clear process for protecting scientists raising integrity concerns or filing complaints.  Instead, the agency punishes scientists for research that the agency deems controversial, and the Policy lacks procedures for these scientists to seek or receive redress.

Finally, matters of scientific integrity within USDA are shrouded in secrecy. USDA has not even posted a
website for scientific integrity information, as stated in the 2013 policy.

1

Monsanto Admits “An Entire Department” to Discredit Any Science That Shows GMO’s or Round-Up Are Harmful

money_corrupt_deal_monsanto_735_350Dare to publish a scientific study against Big Biotech, and Monsanto will defame and discredit you. For the first time, a Monsanto employee admits that there is an entire department within the corporation with the simple task of ‘discrediting’ and ‘debunking’ scientists who speak out against GMOs.

EXCERPT: As far as I know this is the first time that a Monsanto functionary has publicly admitted that they have such an entity which brings their immense political and financial weight to bear on scientists who dare to publish against them. The Discredit Bureau will not be found on their official website.

Monsanto’s “Discredit Bureau” really does exist

Stephanie Hampton Writes on Community Issues for the Daily Kos. Her recent post is most revealing:
Recently, I attended a talk by Monsanto’s Dr. William “Bill” Moar who presented the latest project in their product pipeline dealing with RNA. Most notably, he also spoke about Monsanto’s efforts to educate citizens about the scientific certainty of the safety of their genetically engineered products. The audience was mostly agricultural students many of whom were perhaps hoping for the only well-paid internships and jobs in their field.

One student asked what Monsanto was doing to counter the “bad science” around their work. Dr. Moar, perhaps forgetting that this was a public event, then revealed that Monsanto indeed had “an entire department” (waving his arm for emphasis) dedicated to “debunking” science which disagreed with theirs. As far as I know this is the first time that a Monsanto functionary has publicly admitted that they have such an entity which brings their immense political and financial weight to bear on scientists who dare to publish against them. The Discredit Bureau will not be found on their official website.

The challenge for Monsanto’s Discredit Bureau is steep in attacking the unimpeachably respected Lancet and the international scientific bodies of WHO and IARC. However, they have no choice but to attack since the stakes are so very high for them. Glyphosate is their hallmark product upon which the majority of their profits are based. Make no mistake, this is extremely bad news for Monsanto.

Monsanto holds up the sheer abundance of their own well-funded studies citing the safety of Glyphosate, done over only the past twenty years which is a short period of time in scientific inquiry particularly when dissenting research is actively suppressed.  They also hold up the findings of regulatory bodies, particularly in the United States where the revolving door between agrochemical corporations and government spins at high speed.

The company will stop at nothing to discredit and devalue the contributions of unimpeachably respected Lancet and the international scientific bodies of WHO and IARC, among others.

The stakes are high – after all, an entire industry of GMO seed (for which they currently hold more than a three-fourths monopoly share) is based on being Roundup ready. Glyphosate is their hallmark product, and it accounts for billions in sales when you account for the seed they sell to go with their best-selling herbicide.

In a single publicly made phrase, Moar has admitted that the Monsanto-funded science is sheer propaganda – essentially that they indeed have dozens, if not hundreds of employees out making sure that no science which tells the truth about their cancer-causing products ever garners any credibility whatsoever in the information age.

Monsanto has also held up the findings of regulatory bodies, particularly in the United States where the revolving door between agrochemical corporations and government seems never ending.

0

Maui Causes Starting A New Hour Long TV show on Akaku.  Seeking Underwriter for Two 30 Sec “Sponsorship Acknowledgments” per show.

i-want-you-speak-up-2Soon to air, Maui Causes’ new hour-long public issues Interview TV Show on Akaku’s Channel 55. A new show every Monday Eve from 7 to 8 PM following Democracy Now, replay Sunday at 7PM.

Seeking corporate or commercial sponsor to underwrite the show. Two 30 second acknowledgements per hour.  Great exposure for a great cause: Maui Causes…Crowd Funded Media for Maui’s Not for Profits, Environmental and Progressive Causes.  That’s us!

Reach Sam Small for details.  (973) 271 0788  info@mauicauses.org

 

 

i-want-you-speak-up-facebook

 

0

Monsanto Files Secret Documents on Maui Case, For Judge’s Eye Only. Secret Locations, Secret Processes, Secret Chemicals. WHY SO MANY SECRETS?

Revealed: a secret Monsanto document in the Maui GMO case

Justice withheld: justice denied

A scandal that needs to come to light now

by Jon Rappoport

April 10, 2015

NoMoreFakeNews.com

Imagine you are a lawyer arguing a case before a judge. There is no jury. The judge will decide the outcome.

The judge tells you, “Look, the other side, your opponents in this case, have filed documents with me. These documents are at the heart of their argument. I can’t allow you to read the documents. I can only give you access to heavily redacted versions. You’ll have to do the best you can. I have read the full documents. Your opponents, of course, know every word of those documents. But you don’t. And you won’t. Good luck. Limp along as well as you can.”

That’s what we’re talking about here.

(The link to the document is located at the bottm of this article.)
Screen Shot 2015-04-11 at 1.13.15 PM

Last Election Day, the people of Maui County voted to halt all local GMO and pesticide experimentation being carried out by Monsanto and Dow.

During the temporary halt, a complete independent investigation would be done, to find out exactly how harmful the pesticides and GMOs were.

But the legal and binding vote was suspended, because Monsanto and Dow immediately sued.

The case is now hung up in Federal Court.

I’ve just learned that Monsanto filed documents “under seal,” to make its case in the proceeding now before Federal Judge Susan Oki Mollway.

Monsano requested the court make the documents secret, and the previous Judge, Barry Kurren, agreed to it.

Here, in legalese, is Kurren’s decision:

“ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ EX PARTE APPLICATION TO FILE UNDER SEAL IN PART THE DECLARATIONS OF SAM EATHINGTON, JESSE STIEFEL, AND ADOLPH HELM IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION re 13- Signed by Judge BARRY M. KURREN on 11/14/2014.
‘IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ ex parte application is GRANTED. Accordingly, the subject declarations shall be filed by the Court under seal, and redacted versions may be filed with the Plaintiffs’ Motion.’”

That means the lawyers for the voters of Maui can’t see those Monsanto documents. Not in full. They can only read redacted versions of Monsanto making its case for continued GMO/pesticide experiments on Maui—contravening the demands of Maui voters.

What kind of court is this?

Judge Mollway, who will decide the case, can read everything Monsanto offers in its defense, but the lawyers against Monsanto have no full access and, therefore, can’t argue their side from full knowledge.

This echoes of cases where prosecutors claim “national security” as an issue. In those instances, documents are either excluded as evidence, or only redacted versions are allowed in.

Is this what we’re dealing with here? Monsanto’s concerns have become, in a federal court, a matter of national security?

Below, you will see a link to one such redacted Monsanto document. You will see the many blacked out lines.

One section (no.7) states: “…Monsanto currently owns or leases approximately 784 acres of farmland on the island. Certain specific locations on Maui are uniquely suitable to multi-season/cycle breeding and research.” The next 14 lines of the section are blacked out.

It’s not much of a stretch to infer those 14 lines are blacked out to conceal Maui locations of Monsanto facilities. You mean the addresses and names of Monsanto stations and growing fields on Maui are a secret?

Suppose, in your city, in your region, a major corporation was carrying out, on a regular basis, experiments with new, non-commercial, toxic pesticide chemicals and genetically altered organic materials. And suppose you were told that the permanent facilities of that corporation in your region were located at secret sites. How would you feel about it?

Wouldn’t that raise significant suspicions in your mind? Wouldn’t you want to know exactly what was going on at each and every one of those facilities? And if you were denied that information, as well as the names and addresses of the locations, wouldn’t you infer the secrecy was covering up something harmful to you?

Whole sections of the Monsanto court document are blacked out (e.g., no. 8 and 9). What do they say? Only the Judge and Monsanto know. The lawyers representing the voters of Maui don’t have a clue.

Section 10 states: “The current [Monsanto] workforce in the County [of Maui] has been trained over many years at the precise pollination techniques required and to perform other specialized tasks.” The next two lines are blacked out. Why? Because Monsanto considers further explanation of what these workers do to be proprietary secrets? This is what the Maui voters want to know about, because they, the people of Maui, are on the receiving end of the secret wind-blown pesticide and GMO experiments.

Section 11 of the court document is quite strange. It states: “And the US Department of Agriculture [USDA] sets requirements for how regulated field trials of new GE [genetically engineered] crops must be conducted.” The next 12 lines are blacked out. Why? Are the USDA regulations themselves a secret? Is there something about these regulations Monsanto doesn’t want the public to know? The “field trials” are at the heart of what the people of Maui are objecting to. How toxic are the secret experimental pesticides? How dangerous to health are the secret experimental GMOs?

Section 13 mentions a corn-crop disease called Goss’s Wilt. Then, six lines are blacked out. Why? What is Monsanto hiding from the people of Maui?

 


How in the world can the lawyers representing the voters of Maui argue their case in federal court when all this information is being withheld from them? The answer: they can’t.

Is some of Monsanto’s federally funded biowarfare research (contracted by the US National Institutes of Health)—the details of which Monsanto won’t disclose—taking place on Maui?

The lawyers representing the people of Maui should be filing new motions to declare this case an impossible travesty. Until the lawyers can read every word of the documents Monsanto has filed with the court, there is no case, there is no proceeding, there is only a con job, with Monsanto the preordained winner by default.

And until the alternative media covers the Monsanto-Maui case and blows it up into the scandal it is, there will be no chance of justice.

Here is a link to the Monsanto court document I’ve been referring to:

Declaration of Sam Eathington, Vice President of Global Plant Breeding, Monsanto

Jon Rappoport

The author of three explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED, EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, and POWER OUTSIDE THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. He maintains a consulting practice for private clients, the purpose of which is the expansion of personal creative power. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free emails at NoMoreFakeNews.com or OutsideTheRealityMachine.

0

Former “9/11” New York City Police Commissioner Bernard Kerik Predicts a Criminal Justice ‘Implosion’. Fears America’s criminal justice system is creating a permanent underclass.

Ex-Top Cop Kerik Predicts a Criminal Justice ‘Implosion’From Jailer to Jailed - Kerik

Perhaps best known as Mayor Rudy Giuliani’s top adviser during 9/11, former New York City Police Commissioner Bernard B. Kerik was just a hairbreadth from taking over the Department of Homeland Security in 2004 when he was battered by a flurry of allegations and probes that some saw as politically motivated.

Now, Kerik is using his new memoir, “From Jailer to Jailed: My Journey From Correction and Police Commissioner to Inmate #84888-054,” to launch a high-profile campaign for criminal justice reform.

Kerik and his new book have been featured on NBC’s Today, Morning Joe and many other outlets. Already the book has skyrocketed in sales, hitting #1 on the Amazon bestseller list.

Kerik says his own experience has given him a new view. He fears America’s criminal justice system is creating a permanent underclass, especially among young African-Americans who are treated too harshly for minor drug crimes.

The system is simply out of control, he argues.

In an exclusive Newsmax interview, Kerik blames the nation’s tangled thicket of laws, mandatory sentences, and its habit of turning young offenders into hardened criminals.

But the real victim, he says, may be the American public that pays the exorbitant cost of a criminal justice system that Kerik warns is on the verge of imploding.

Newsmax: Why put your prison ID and inmate number right there on the cover of your book?

Bernie Kerik: The reality is I’ve made mistakes that I’ve paid a tremendous price for. Those mistakes will live with me for the rest of my life. They have become part of my identity, which is the reason for that inmate ID and the number.

What was your reaction to the circumstances you witnessed while incarcerated?

No one in the history of our country with my background and experience — and more importantly, my success — has ever actually been a target of the system. That gives me a perspective that, realistically, no one else has. I’ve seen the inside as someone extremely knowledgeable of how the system is supposed to work. … Then to see the system from the inside out was shocking.

Say a 19-year-old is busted for selling a few grams of cocaine. Doesn’t he owe a debt to society?

If that was a really bad guy, and you had to put him away for 10 or 20 years, OK, I get it. But that wasn’t a really bad guy. That guy should have been put in a program … Rehabilitate him and teach him right from wrong, rather than completely, personally and professionally annihilate his life. Because that’s what we did. And you know what? There are thousands upon thousands of people just like him in prison.

Would you do away with solitary confinement?

There is a purpose for solitary confinement — to protect the facility and staff, and administrative segregation if you need to protect people. But we take young men who get caught smoking a cigarette and stick them in solitary confinement for 30 to 90 days. That’s insane.

What’s the system’s biggest flaw in your view?

We take regulatory, administrative violations and we turn them into criminal conduct. In so doing, that person becomes a felon. If they worked in banking, or law, or law enforcement, they can never do it again. If medical, there’s a really good chance they can’t do it again. In some states, you can’t get a barber’s license, or even a job as a garbage man. … A convicted felon basically pays a life sentence for any felony, regardless of the crime.

Give us an example of an absurd law that should be taken off the books.

You have people who kill the wrong animal while hunting, use the wrong weapon, or kill some animal on the wrong day — there are a thousand of these things. Catch too many fish, catch the wrong type of fish, catch too big of a fish. They make these people felons. With some 2.3 million U.S. prisoners, what will happen in your view without serious criminal justice reform?

It is an economic catastrophe for this country. It’s unsustainable, and over time, the system will implode. … The states have budgets they have to adhere to. But the federal government just keeps printing money and throwing it into the system.

Get your copy of Bernard Kerik’s new bestseller “From Jailer to Jailed: My Journey From Correction and Police Commissioner to Inmate #84888-054,” at bookstores everywhere or go online to amazon.com – Go Here Now

0

Pineapples That Claim to Fight Cancer? New GMO Approvals May Allow Health Claims. But Nothing’s Been Proven, So Why Would GM Foods Get To Make Claims That Organic Foods Are Denied?

Wait, Organic food growers, growing heirlooms or hybrids, cannot claim health benefits or the FDA comes after them, even though humans have been benefiting from them for thousands of years…. BUT GMOS, foreign proteins injected into DNA via a bacteria or virus, are touting health benefits and they have never been tested on humans? That’s just wrong.

29c36bd3b26a17e83cd1de0f41f8f85709012529

WASHINGTON (AP) — With recent government approval of potatoes that don’t bruise and apples that don’t brown, a new generation of genetically modified foods is headed to grocery shelves.

What could be next? Cancer-fighting pink pineapples, heart-healthy purple tomatoes and less fatty vegetable oils, among other products, could receive government approval in the coming years.

The companies and scientists that have created these foods are hoping that customers will be attracted to the health benefits and convenience and overlook any concerns about genetic engineering.

“I think once people see more of the benefits they will become more accepting of the technology,” says Michael Firko, who oversees the Agriculture Department’s regulation of genetically modified organisms, or GMOs.

Critics aren’t so sure. They say there should be more thorough regulation of modified foods, which are grown from seeds engineered in labs. The Agriculture Department has the authority only to oversee plant health relative to GMOs, and seeking Food and Drug Administration’s safety approval is generally voluntary.

“Many of these things can be done through traditional breeding,” says Doug Gurian-Sherman of the advocacy group Center for Food Safety. “There needs to be skepticism.”

image

A small British company is planning to apply for U.S. permission to produce and sell purple tomatoes that have high levels of anthocyanins, compounds found in blueberries that some studies show lower the risk of cardiovascular disease and cancer. (Photo: AP Photo/Andrew Davis, The John Innes Centre, UK)

Fresh Del Monte Produce Inc. has engineered a pink pineapple that includes lycopene, an antioxidant compound that gives tomatoes their red color and may have a role in preventing cancer. USDA has approved importation of the pineapple, which would be grown only outside of the United States; it is pending FDA approval. Some gardeners already grow conventional purple tomatoes, but a small British company is planning to apply for U.S. permission to produce and sell a new genetically modified variety that have high levels of anthocyanins, compounds found in blueberries that some studies show lower the risk of cardiovascular disease and cancer. FDA would have to approve any health claims used to sell the products.

Seed giants Monsanto and Dow AgroSciences are separately developing modified soybean, canola and sunflower oils with fewer saturated fats and more Omega-3 fatty acids. The Florida citrus company Southern Gardens is using a spinach gene to develop genetically engineered orange trees that could potentially resist citrus greening disease, which is devastating the Florida orange crop. Okanagan Specialty Fruits Inc., the company that created the nonbrowning apples, is also looking at genetically engineering peaches, cherries and pears to resist disease and improve quality.

A few genetically engineered fruits and vegetables are already available in grocery stores: Hawaiian papaya, some zucchini and squash and a small amount of the sweet corn we eat, for example. But the bulk of the nation’s genetically engineered crops are corn and soybeans that are eaten by livestock or made into popular processed food ingredients like corn starch, soybean oil or high fructose corn syrup.

image

The FDA says genetically modified, bruise-resistant apples and potatoes are safe to eat. (AP)

The engineered corn and soybeans have faced resistance from environmental groups and some consumers who say not enough is known about the technology. The FDA has said engineered foods on the market now are safe, but the groups have called for the labeling so consumers know what they are eating. According to a December Associated Press-GfK poll, two-thirds of Americans favor those labels.

Facing that concern, companies developing the new products say their strategy for winning over consumers is to harness the increased interest in healthy eating.

“This is a new wave of crops that have both grower benefits and consumer benefits,” says Doug Cole of J.R. Simplot, the company that developed the potatoes. Many modified types of corn and soybeans are engineered to resist herbicides, which is of little use to the consumer.

A potential benefit of Simplot’s potatoes is fewer black spots, a plus not only for farmers seeking higher yields but also for consumers who wouldn’t have to soak them before cooking. Small amounts of both the potatoes and the apples could be in stores in the next two or three years.

British scientist Cathie Martin has developed the modified purple tomatoes and hopes to eventually sell them as a juice in the United States. She says some of those same health-conscious consumers concerned about GMOs should be attracted to a product with potential to help lower the risk of cancer.

Retailers are still uncertain. McDonald’s buys Simplot’s conventional potato products but said the company does not have “current plans” to source any GMO potatoes. Other retail chains have already pledged not to sell a genetically engineered salmon that is pending approval at the Food and Drug Administration.

Cathleen Enright of the Biotechnology Industry Organization says the industry worries that opposition from advocacy groups will slow development.

“At the end of the day, the marketplace is going to determine what is going to succeed,” Enright said.

1

The Emperor’s New Clothes Trailer – Russell Brand Tells The Truth


Special screenings April 21st followed by AN EVENING WITH RUSSELL BRAND Live event beamed to cinemas nationwide.
BOOK TICKETS NOW: http://scnl.co/TENCBookNow

Synopsis

THE EMPEROR’S NEW CLOTHES

Definition: Fairytale, allegorical

1. Collective ignorance of an obvious fact, or deception, despite undeniable evidence.

World-famous British comedian and activist Russell Brand joins forces with acclaimed director Michael Winterbottom on a polemical documentary about the financial crisis and gross inequality we currently face. Starting with the genesis of today’s economic policies, with the arrival of Milton Friedman’s school of thought in Reagan’s leadership and Thatcher’s UK, the film explores how these policies have come to dominate the western world. The rich have got richer; where a CEO of a major British company used to earn 10 times the average wage of his workers, now they earn 200 times. According to Oxfam, the richest 80 people in the world own as much as the poorest 3.5 billion. It would now take 300 years for the average cleaner, cleaning the offices of his senior boss, to earn the same salary taken home by the same boss last year.

Milton Friedman once said that every crisis was an opportunity. The financial crisis of 2008 should have been a chance to reform the system for the benefit of everyone. But instead, austerity for everyone throughout Britain and Europe was the price to be paid for supporting the financial sector, with £131 billion spent by UK tax payers to keep the financial system afloat, while $30 trillion in support and subsidies went to Wall Street in the US.

Using a mixture of documentary, interviews, archive footage and comedy, Russell Brand takes us from his hometown Grays in Essex, to the heart of London ‘City’ and on to the Big Apple. This daring film will shake up the world by revealing the bewildering truth about how the people at the bottom are paying for the luxuries of those at the top.

Things can change…things do change.russle-brand

0

Monsanto Lobbyist Freaks Out on TV: Claims Round-up Safe to Drink, Storms Off When Asked to Try It. Calls Interviewer A Jerk.

French television station Canal+ recently sat down with Dr. Patrick Moore for an upcoming documentary. Dr Moore, who claims to be an ecological expert and is currently the frontman for Ecosense Environmental, stated to the interviewer that Monsanto’s weed killer Roundup was not responsible for skyrocketing cancer rates in Argentina.

This is where the interview took a turn for the surreal.
Dr. Moore insisted that Roundup is safe to drink, at which point the interviewer did the only logical thing one could do in that situation. He offered the doctor a glass of the weed killer to allow him an opportunity to back up his statement. The following is the text from that exchange.
Dr. Patrick Moore: “You can drink a whole quart of (Roundup) and it won’t hurt you.”
Canal+: “You want to drink some? We have some here.”
Moore: “I’d be happy to, actually…. Uhh…Not.. Not really. But I know it wouldn’t hurt me.”
Canal+: “If you say so, I have some glyphosate, have some.”
Moore: “No. I’m not stupid.”
Canal+: “So, it’s dangerous, right?
Moore: “No, People try to commit suicide with it and fail; fail regularly.”
Canal+: “Tell the truth, it’s dangerous.”
Moore: “It’s not dangerous to humans.”
Canal+: “So, are you ready to drink one glass?”
Moore: “No, I’m not an idiot. Interview me about golden rice, that’s what I’m talking about.”
Canal+: “We did.”
Moore then abruptly ends the interview by calling the host a “complete jerk” and storms off.
Greenpeace, an organization to which the doctor turned lobbyist belonged in the 1970’s, issued this statement in part in 2008 regarding Dr. Patrick Moore.
Patrick Moore often misrepresents himself in the media as an environmental “expert” or even an “environmentalist,” while offering anti-environmental opinions on a wide range of issues and taking a distinctly anti-environmental stance. He also exploits long-gone ties with Greenpeace to sell himself as a speaker and pro-corporate spokesperson, usually taking positions that Greenpeace opposes.

While it is true that Patrick Moore was a member of Greenpeace in the 1970s, in 1986 he abruptly turned his back on the very issues he once passionately defended. He claims he “saw the light” but what Moore really saw was an opportunity for financial gain. Since then he has gone from defender of the planet to a paid representative of corporate polluters.

Patrick Moore promotes such anti-environmental positions as clearcut logging, nuclear power, farmed salmon, PVC (vinyl) production, genetically engineered crops, and mining. Clients for his consulting services are a veritable Who’s Who of companies that Greenpeace has exposed for environmental misdeeds, including Monsanto, Weyerhaeuser, and BHP Minerals.
Watch the video from Canal+

This article (Lobbyist Claims Monsanto’s Roundup Is Safe To Drink, Freaks Out When Offered A Glass) is free and open source. You have permission to republish this article under a Creative Commons license with attribution to the author and TheAntiMedia.org. Tune in to the Anti-Media radio show Monday through Friday @ 11pm Eastern/8pm Pacific. Help us fix our typos: edits@theantimedia.org.

Screen Shot 2015-03-27 at 9.36.55 AM

0

Maui’s Mayor Alan Arakawa Finds Yet Another Way to KISS MONSANTO’S ASS

kiss-ass

The Mayor just submitted his FY 2016 Budget proposal to the Council at 2pm and under his:

Economic Development Program -Agriculture Section (page 441 & 442) he proposes a Grant:

TO THE STATE DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE (totally unheard of for the County to budget monies to give to the State)

For: “Funds will be used to support county participation in a statewide GMO study to examine possible health and environmental impacts associated with the use of pesticides applied to genetically modified agricultural products.”

Yes, folks you got that right.

He proposes that the TAX PAYERS pay for the study that the PEOPLE voted THE RESPONSIBLE ENTITIES should pay for!

If anything good comes from this, its that they put a dollar figure on the cost of such a study.

I think its safe to say that the chemical companies operating in Hawaii can scrape together $50k.

2016 Maui Budget (Details on public hearings and all things budget deliberations for this year)

1

World Health Org Says Round Up Linked To Cancer. Monsanto Says It’s Safe When “Used As Directed”. Too Bad Open Air Experiments In Our Midst Are, By Definition, “OFF LABEL”.

monsantoBy Carey Gillam, Guest Blogger

March 24 Tue Mar 24, 2015 3:26pm EDT

(Reuters) – Monsanto Co, maker of the world’s most widely used herbicide, Roundup, wants an international health organization to retract a report linking the chief ingredient in Roundup to cancer.

The company said on Tuesday that the report, issued on Friday by the World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), was biased and contradicts regulatory findings that the ingredient, glyphosate, is safe when used as labeled.

A working group of the IARC, based in Lyon, France, said after reviewing scientific literature it was classifying glyphosate as “probably carcinogenic to humans.”

“There are a number of independent, published manuscripts that clearly indicate that glyphosate … can promote cancer and tumor growth,” said Dave Schubert, head of the cellular neurobiology laboratory at the Salk Institute for Biological Studies in La Jolla, California. “It should be banned.”

“We question the quality of the assessment,” Philip Miller, Monsanto vice president of global regulatory affairs, said on Tuesday in an interview. “The WHO has something to explain.”

Monsanto officials have asked to meet with WHO and IARC members, and Miller said the company wants a retraction.

A representative of the IARC could not immediately be reached for comment on Tuesday.

Miller said the company provided scientific data to the IARC showing the safety of glyphosate, but that the agency largely ignored it.

Miller said the IARC report should not affect the safety review of glyphosate currently under way by the Environmental Protection Agency.

The EPA, which has the power to limit or ban use of glyphosate, said it would look at the WHO report as part of the review process.

Farmers have been using glyphosate in increasing quantities since Monsanto in the mid-1990s introduced crops genetically engineered to withstand being sprayed with Roundup herbicide.

“Roundup Ready” corn, soybeans and other crops are popular because of the ease with which farmers have been able to kill weeds. But weeds have developed resistance to glyphosate, leading farmers to use more herbicide.

The U.S. Geological Survey estimated agricultural use of glyphosate in 2012, the most recent year available, at more than 283 million pounds, up from 110 million pounds in 2002.

The United States and other international regulatory bodies have backed the safety of glyphosate when used as directed, but the IARC report cited studies that raised concerns about glyphosate and impacts on health.

Monsanto says such studies are invalid. But critics say they merit attention.

“There are a number of independent, published manuscripts that clearly indicate that glyphosate … can promote cancer and tumor growth,” said Dave Schubert, head of the cellular neurobiology laboratory at the Salk Institute for Biological Studies in La Jolla, California. “It should be banned.”

(Reporting by Carey Gillam in Kansas City, Mo.; editing by Matthew Lewis)

2

Judge extends delay on Maui GMO-ban law: From The Maui News

March 21, 2015

By MELISSA TANJI – Staff Writer (mtanji@mauinews.com) , The Maui News

A federal judge has pushed back her stay on the implementation of a voter-approved Maui County moratorium on the farming of genetically engineered crops from March 31 to June 15.

In an order issued Thursday, U.S. District Judge Susan Oki Mollway said that she will wait until the state Legislature completes its session before proceeding further. Mollway acknowledged that House Bill 849 and Senate Bill 986 – which would have rendered the county’s anti-GMO ordinance moot – are technically dead because they missed a key legislative deadline last week.

Although unlikely, she said that legislation affecting the case still could find its way into other bills.

“Given the chance, however remote, that legislation might affect the present dispute, a discussion was held on March 10 regarding whether the ordinance should be stayed until the Legislature adjourns in May 2015,” Mollway said in her order.

After the March 10 hearing, citizens group Sustainable Hawaiian Agriculture for the Keiki and the Aina Movement, or SHAKA Movement, urged the court on March 13 to stop the delays. To prolong the case would cause “irreparable harms” to the environment, public health and safety, Native Hawaiian interests and the integrity of the political process, SHAKA said.

In November, Maui voters approved the ballot initiative that called for a moratorium on farming GMO crops until scientific studies are conducted to determine their safety and benefits. The initiative was spearheaded by SHAKA, which maintains that the farming of GMOs is harmful, and that pesticide and chemical drift during cultivation may hurt people and the land.

Monsanto Co. and Agrigenetics Inc., a unit of Dow Chemical Co., filed a lawsuit to prevent the implementation of the voter-approved law. An agreement between the court and plaintiffs late last year called for delaying implementation until March 31 to allow for a hearing on the case.

SHAKA argued that it was not a party to discussions about the stay, so it should be allowed a hearing to oppose the delay.

Mollway countered in her order that SHAKA did not identify facts in its March 13 filing that would be resolved by further hearings. Even if hearings were scheduled, the judge said that they would be heard after March 31.

The judged cited the reasons for holding up the implementation of the ordinance until June 15. She said that both seed companies and their customers could lose business and not be able to compete in the market. The county would waste taxpayer money installing “infrastructure” needed to enforce the law only to have it scrapped if seed companies prevailed. Jobs, particularly on Molokai where unemployment is high, could could be lost if the ordinance were enacted now.

“Unemployment cannot be confined to purely monetary effects. The loss of jobs affects the availability of health insurance and of college and other opportunities for the laid-off worker’s family members. These personal losses could have long-term effects on the county as a whole,” Mollway said.

The judge said that a short delay in the implementation of the ordinance in light of the legislative process and judicial review “does no harm to the integrity of the political process at the county level.”

Mollway also did not accept SHAKA’s arguments regarding the delay’s potential impact on the environment or public health and safety.

* Melissa Tanji can be reached at mtanji@mauinews.com.

0

Huge New Challenge to Monsanto’s Round-Up: Glyphosate is “probable human carcinogen” – World Health Org.’s Cancer Agency 3/20/2015

 . From GM Watch

Here’s the link to the statement by the WHO:

Roundup - IARC declare as a probable human carcinogen

IARC’s verdict comes as glyphosate is set to be re-approved in Europe this year

The World Health Organisation’s cancer agency has declared the world’s most widely used weedkiller a “probable human carcinogen” in a move that will alarm the agrochemical industry and amateur gardeners.

The assessment by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) of glyphosate, which is used in herbicides with estimated annual sales of $6bn, will be of special concern to Monsanto, the company that brought glyphosate to market under the trade name Roundup in the 1970s.

Over 80% of GM crops worldwide are engineered to be grown with the herbicide.

The IARC has no regulatory role and its decisions do not automatically lead to bans or restrictions, but campaigners are expected to use them to put pressure on regulators.

The IARC reached its decision based on the view of 17 experts from 11 countries, who met in Lyon, France, to assess the carcinogenicity of 5 organophosphate pesticides.

The IARC’s assessment of the 5 pesticides is published in the latest issue of The Lancet Oncology.

Europe is set to re-approve glyphosate this year.

The IARC assessment is here (register to gain free access):
http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanonc/article/PIIS1470-2045%2815%2970134-8/abstract

Financial Times article behind paywall: http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/8b79a572-cf14-11e4-893d-00144feab7de.html#axzz3UxYNKYO6

The response by the pesticide industry association, the Glyphosate Task Force, is here:
http://www.wmcactionnews5.com/story/28574811/statement-of-the-gtf-on-the-recent-iarc-decision-concerning-glyphosate

0

Understanding the Political Process in Hawai’i: Tools for Grassroots Change” Presentation by Gary Hooser and Kate McMillan

Do you feel passionate about the protection of Hawai’i’s natural resources and want to make a difference?

Upcountry Sustainability presented “Understanding the Political Process in Hawai’i: Tools for Grassroots Change” with Kaua’i County Council Member and President of the Hawai’i Alliance for Progressive Action (HAPA) Gary Hooser.

In this workshop, Hooser, was joined by HAPA board member Katie McMillan, will explain:
~the Hawai’i legislative process
~how to track and follow bills
~submit testimony, and present your point of view to the legislature effectively.

As a State Senator and while serving as a Councilmember, Hooser was known for his willingness to be “out in front” on issues. He introduced a “first in the nation law” making Hawai’i the nation’s first state requiring solar hot water heating systems (or equivalent) for all newly constructed homes. He also led the early legislative battle in the Senate in support of civil union legislation and is widely acknowledged for his leadership and hard work on progressive policy initiatives covering a broad spectrum.

Katie McMillan is marketing and public relations consultant and is also the Founder of TEDxMaui. She is an advocate for citizen engagement and participation in the legislative process.

Find out more about the presenters, and the sponsoring organizations via the following links:

Upcountry Sustainability: www.upcountrysustainability.org

The Hawai’i Alliance for Progressive Action: www.hawaiiallianceforprogressiveaction.org

Gary Hooser: www.garyhooser.com

Katie McMillan: www.katiemcmillanpublicrelations.com

About Upcountry Sustainability:
Upcountry Sustainability brings people and groups together creating a collaborative, sustainable Maui community, and thereby helps build a healthy island, state, and planet Earth. Upcountry Sustainability envisions a multi-cultural community that is environmentally, socially and economically sustainable that works together in the spirit of aloha to serve as a model of a self-reliant, thriving community. Through monthly meetings, education and training events, Upcountry Sustainability works to
build a balanced local economy, establish healthy relationships with the environment, and share resources and knowledge.

About the Hawai’i Alliance for Progressive Action (H.A.P.A.)

The Hawai’i Alliance for Progressive Action (H.A.P.A.) is a 501(c)(3) non-profit whose mission is “to catalyze community empowerment and systemic change towards valuing ʻaina (environment) and people ahead of corporate profit.” H.A.P.A. is committed to revitalizing and supporting grassroots democracy.

 

Screen Shot 2015-03-17 at 7.21.14 PM10422165_10152617054656423_5174941479776571585_n

0

Anti-GMO, Biotech Factions Clash at Food Summit

Anti-GMO, Biotech Factions Clash at Food Summit

By Jacob Bunge, Wall Street Journal Guest Blogger

A farmer harvests corn in Washington, Ill., in November.

Associated Press

Can genetically modified crops grow in harmony with their non-GMO counterparts?

The debate between the pro-biotech and non-GMO camps increasingly looks more like scorched earth than common ground. Biotech seed makers like Monsanto Co. and Syngenta AG, along with farmer groups, argue that genetically modified crops are critical to feed a growing global population. Organic food companies and consumer groups charge that GMO crops promote a chemical-heavy approach to farming that’s harsh on land and animals and could contribute to human-health problems.

The increasingly polarized debate prompted the U.S. Department of Agriculture to convene Thursday a two-day summit on “agricultural coexistence” that seeks to mend some farmland fence-posts.

“The one thing I am really tired of is division,” said Tom Vilsack, U.S. Secretary of Agriculture, at the event at North Carolina State University in Raleigh, N.C. “This is about finding a path forward.”

But finding that path appeared difficult, with some speakers on both sides of the issue offering few signs of compromise.

“Organic is the future of American agriculture,” said Errol Schweizer, executive global grocery coordinator for Whole Foods Market Inc. Organic crops are grown without GMO seeds.

“We’re not going to feed the world with organic foods,” said Dan Glickman, executive director of the Aspen Institute, a public policy think tank in Washington, and a former U.S. secretary of agriculture.

One thing both factions agree on: The discord costs money. Tens of millions of dollars have been spent advocating for and against state ballot initiatives and legislation requiring labels for foods made with GMOs.

Meanwhile, organic farmers spend thousands of dollars creating buffer zones in their fields to guard against the spread of neighbors’ GMO crop pollen and related pesticides, and setting up systems to ensure harvested grain doesn’t mix with GMO varieties, said Laura Batcha, chief executive of the Organic Trade Association, speaking at the event.

Biotech-crop advocates worry the debate over labeling and continued questions over the crops’ safety is slowing scientific advancements and new products that could help farmers raise hardier crops and produce more food, Mr. Glickman said. The Food and Drug Administration and many U.S. health and science groups say food made with the ingredients is safe.

Some farmers at the event said they took the intensified scrutiny of biotech crops personally.

“For retailers to talk about one production system over another as being the gold standard disparages the production system I use, and I don’t think that’s conducive to having a conversation about coexistence,” said Ron Moore, who grows soybeans, corn and alfalfa near Roseville, Ill., and serves as secretary of the American Soybean Association.

Farmers of all sorts need to acknowledge that “a significant percentage of our community wants to know whether or not they’re eating GMOs,” said Lynn Clarkson, president of Clarkson Grain Co., a Cerro Gordo, Ill., company that specializes in marketing non-biotech crops.

Mr. Clarkson suggested labeling all foods that do not contain genetically engineered ingredients under a federal standard, though others in the non-GMO camp continued to argue for a federal rule requiring labels for food containing GMOs.

Some non-GMO farmers and food makers already feel they bear a greater economic burden than their biotech-using counterparts, however. Some farmers adjust their planting to help ensure non-GMO crop fields remain free of biotech plants, Ms. Batcha said, and Whole Foods’ Mr. Schweizer said his company had struggled to find enough crops to make organic products for its shelves.

“I actually am importing heirloom corn from Mexico,” Mr. Schweizer said. “It’s a huge issue.”

One place USDA officials sought common ground Thursday: the lunch menu. Attendees could choose from GMO-derived selections – grilled chicken breast, corn salsa and roasted sugar beets – as well as an organic menu including free-range chicken, wild rice pilaf and salad. The competing menu choices were served at separate tables.

0

Action Alert: TESTIFY SUPPORTING HCR53 A Resolution Calling for a US Constitutional Convention to redress CITIZEN’S  UNITED

CLICK HERE TO TESTIFY ONLINE  It’s easy and vital.

Action-alert

HCR53: REQUESTING THE UNITED STATES CONGRESS TO CALL FOR A CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION TO PROPOSE A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT TO ADDRESS CONCERNS RAISED BY THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT DECISION IN CITIZENS UNITED V. FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION.

We must reverse Citizens United, Restore our Democracy, and Save the Republic. Join the Fight for Free and Fair Elections in America!

Join and Get More Info from The WOLF PAC Alliance

Screen Shot 2015-03-10 at 10.38.50 AM
Join WOLF PAC for a conference call on Tuesday, March 10th at 7pm HST as we prepare for our first committee hearing!

HCR53 is scheduled to be heard in the House Committee on Judiciary at 3:00pm on Thursday, March 12th.  This is our first big hurdle and your opportunity to submit testimony in support of this historic piece of legislation.

Please take the time to write one paragraph about who you are and why this issue is important to you, and bring it to our conference call tomorrow night.  If you are able to attend the hearing in person, please let me know right away.  Either email me at darragh.lawrence.wp@gmail.com or give me a call at 831-334-8341.

 

http://www.wolf-pac.com/?recruiter_id=7777

It’s GO time!!

Conference Phone Number:  605-562-3140
Access Code:  936893#
When:  Tuesday, March 10th, 7-8pm
Agenda:  Committee Hearing Testimony

0

Powered by WordPress. Designed by WooThemes