^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Featured stories in this issue...
Who Benefits from Disasters?
In her book, Shock Doctrine, Naomi Klein offers a new
interpretation of recent American history, arguing in detail that
disasters and catastrophes are now highly profitable, as well as
essential for maintaining the power of political elites. This new
hypothesis has great explanatory power, helping us make sense out of
the headlines.
A New Report Tells How To 'Stop Trashing the Planet'
If we all aimed for zero waste and got serious about recycling and
composting, we could quickly reduce greenhouse gas emissions by an
amount equal to the emissions of 87 coal-fired power plants (1/5 of
the nation's 417 plants). This would be huge, and could be done
quickly. But we'd have to get serious.
Trans-fats Linked To Breast Cancer Risk
"A high serum level of trans-monounsaturated fatty acids,
presumably reflecting a high intake of industrially processed foods,
is probably one factor contributing to increased risk of invasive
breast cancer in women."
Experts Revive Debate Over Cellphones and Cancer
"More and more kids are using cellphones," said Dr. Paul J. Rosch,
clinical professor of medicine and psychiatry at New York Medical
College. "They may be much more affected. Their brains are growing
rapidly, and their skulls are thinner."
Genetically Modified Foods Will Worsen the Global Food Crisis
Two scenarios are unfolding for the future of farming: organic and
local vs. industrialized and dependent on seed-varieties owned by
transnational corporations.
Packer Twp, Pennsylvnia, Passes Law Controlling Corporations
Another muncipality has passed a local law extinguishing the rights
claimed by corporations. They said it couldn't be done, but it
is being done.
Has the End of Cheap Oil Arrived?
"Some oil optimists are wavering. Not only have oil prices soared
to historic levels, but unlike past spikes, those prices haven't
generated a surge in new output.... The change is so stark that the
oil industry itself has lost some of its cockiness."
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
From: NaomiKlein.org, Jan. DAY, 2008
[Printer-friendly version]
WHY THE RIGHT LOVES A DISASTER
By Naomi Klein
Moody's, the credit-rating agency, claims the key to solving the
United States' economic woes is slashing spending on Social Security.
The National Association of Manufacturers says the fix is for the
federal government to adopt the organization's wish-list of new tax
cuts. For Investor's Business Daily, it is oil drilling in the Arctic
National Wildlife Refuge, "perhaps the most important stimulus of
all."
But of all the cynical scrambles to package pro-business cash grabs as
"economic stimulus," the prize has to go to Lawrence B. Lindsey,
formerly President Bush's assistant for economic policy and his
advisor during the 2001 recession. Lindsey's plan is to solve a crisis
set off by bad lending by extending lots more questionable credit.
"One of the easiest things to do would be to allow manufacturers and
retailers" -- notably Wal-Mart -- "to open their own financial
institutions, through which they could borrow and lend money," he
wrote recently in the Wall Street Journal.
Never mind that that an increasing number of Americans are defaulting
on their credit card payments, raiding their 401(k) accounts and
losing their homes. If Lindsey had his way, Wal-Mart, rather than lose
sales, could just loan out money to keep its customers shopping,
effectively turning the big-box chain into an old-style company store
to which Americans can owe their souls.
If this kind of crisis opportunism feels familiar, it's because it is.
Over the last four years, I have been researching a little-explored
area of economic history: the way that crises have paved the way for
the march of the right-wing economic revolution across the globe. A
crisis hits, panic spreads and the ideologues fill the breach, rapidly
reengineering societies in the interests of large corporate players.
It's a maneuver I call "disaster capitalism."
Sometimes the enabling national disasters have been physical blows to
countries: wars, terrorist attacks, natural disasters. More often they
have been economic crises: debt spirals, hyperinflation, currency
shocks, recessions.
More than a decade ago, economist Dani Rodrik, then at Columbia
University, studied the circumstances in which governments adopted
free-trade policies. His findings were striking: "No significant case
of trade reform in a developing country in the 1980s took place
outside the context of a serious economic crisis." The 1990s proved
him right in dramatic fashion. In Russia, an economic meltdown set the
stage for fire-sale privatizations. Next, the Asian crisis in 1997-98
cracked open the "Asian tigers" to a frenzy of foreign takeovers, a
process the New York Times dubbed "the world's biggest going-out-of-
business sale."
To be sure, desperate countries will generally do what it takes to get
a bailout. An atmosphere of panic also frees the hands of politicians
to quickly push through radical changes that would otherwise be too
unpopular, such as privatization of essential services, weakening of
worker protections and free-trade deals. In a crisis, debate and
democratic process can be handily dismissed as unaffordable luxuries.
Do the free-market policies packaged as emergency cures actually fix
the crises at hand? For the ideologues involved, that has mattered
little. What matters is that, as a political tactic, disaster
capitalism works. It was the late free-market economist Milton
Friedman, writing in the preface to the 1982 reissue of his manifesto,
"Capitalism and Freedom," who articulated the strategy most
succinctly. "Only a crisis -- actual or perceived -- produces real
change. When that crisis occurs, the actions that are taken depend on
the ideas that are lying around. That, I believe, is our basic
function: to develop alternatives to existing policies, to keep them
alive and available until the politically impossible becomes
politically inevitable."
A decade later, John Williamson, a key advisor to the International
Monetary Fund and the World Bank (and who coined the phrase "the
Washington consensus"), went even further. He asked a conference of
top-level policymakers "whether it could conceivably make sense to
think of deliberately provoking a crisis so as to remove the political
logjam to reform."
Again and again, the Bush administration has seized on crises to break
logjams blocking the more radical pieces of its economic agenda.
First, a recession provided the excuse for sweeping tax cuts. Next,
the "war on terror" ushered in an era of unprecedented military and
homeland security privatization. After Hurricane Katrina, the
administration handed out tax holidays, rolled back labor standards,
closed public housing projects and helped turn New Orleans into a
laboratory for charter schools -- all in the name of disaster
"reconstruction."
Given this track record, Washington lobbyists had every reason to
believe that the current recession fears would provoke a new round of
corporate gift-giving. Yet it seems that the public is getting wise to
the tactics of disaster capitalism. Sure, the proposed $150-billion
economic stimulus package is little more than a dressed-up tax cut,
including a new batch of "incentives" to business. But the Democrats
nixed the more ambitious GOP attempt to leverage the crisis to lock in
the Bush tax cuts and go after Social Security. For the time being, it
seems that a crisis created by a dogged refusal to regulate markets
will not be "fixed" by giving Wall Street more public money with which
to gamble.
Yet while managing (barely) to hold the line, the House Democrats
appear to have given up on extending unemployment benefits and
increasing funding for food stamps and Medicaid as part of the
stimulus package. More important, they are failing utterly to use the
crisis to propose alternative solutions to a status quo marked by
serial crises, whether environmental, social or economic.
The problem is not a lack of ideas "alive and available" -- to borrow
Friedman's phrase. There are plenty available, from single-payer
healthcare to legislating a living wage. Hundreds of thousands of jobs
can be created by rebuilding the ailing public infrastructure and
making it more friendly to public transit and renewable energy. Need
start-up funds? Close the loophole that lets billionaire hedge fund
managers pay 15% capital gains instead of 35% income tax, and adopt a
long-proposed tax on international currency trading. The bonus? A less
volatile, crisis-prone market.
The way we respond to crises is always highly political, a lesson
progressives appear to have forgotten. There's a historical irony to
that: Crises have ushered in some of America's great progressive
policies. Most notably, after the dramatic market failure of 1929, the
left was ready and waiting with its ideas -- full employment, huge
public works, mass union drives. The Social Security system that
Moody's is so eager to dismantle was a direct response to the
Depression.
Every crisis is an opportunity; someone will exploit it. The question
we face is this: Will the current turmoil become an excuse to transfer
yet more public wealth into private hands, to wipe out the last
vestiges of the welfare state, all in the name of economic growth? Or
will this latest failure of unfettered markets be the catalyst that is
needed to revive a spirit of public interest, to get serious about the
pressing crises of our time, from gaping inequality to global warming
to failing infrastructure?
The disaster capitalists have held the reins for three decades. The
time has come, once again, for disaster populism.
Return to Table of Contents
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
From: Ecolocalizer, Jun. 6, 2008
[Printer-friendly version]
WANT TO CURB GLOBAL WARMING? START RECYCLING AND COMPOSTING.
By Shirley Siluk Gregory
Looking for ways to reduce your carbon footprint beyond changing
lightbulbs and taking the train? Turns out we all could make a big
difference in greenhouse gas emissions by composting our food waste
and not throwing out so much trash.
That's the message from "Stop Trashing the Climate," a report by the
Institute for Local Self-Reliance, the Global Alliance for
Incinerator Alternatives (GAIA) and Eco-Cycle, a non-profit
recycler. The study finds that waste prevention and increased
recycling and composting could reduce as many greenhouse gas emissions
as are produced by 21 percent of the U.S.'s 417 coal-fired power
plants.
Why? There are two basic reasons. One, by trashing stuff instead of
reusing or repairing it, we create the demand for new resources... and
extracting, manufacturing and transporting those resources generates
carbon dioxide. And, two, by tossing biodegradable materials into
landfills instead of composting them, we're creating emissions of
methane, a greenhouse gas that is shorter-lived but 72 times more
powerful than carbon dioxide.
"Recycling is as important for climate stability as improving vehicle
fuel efficiency, retrofitting lighting, planting trees and protecting
forests," said Brenda Platt, co-director of the Institute for Local
Self-Reliance and lead author of the "Stop Trashing the Climate"
report. "By avoiding landfill methane emissions, composting in
particular is a vital tactic in the battle to stop Arctic ice melting.
Biodegradable materials are a liability when buried and burned but an
asset when composted."
The report asserts that "A zero waste approach based on preventing
waste and expanding reuse, recycling and composting is one of the
fastest, cheapest, and most effective strategies to protect the
climate." It also notes that, per megawatt-hour, a trash incinerator
produces more carbon dioxide emissions that a coal-fired power plant.
Incinerators also waste three to five times as much energy as
recycling helps to conserve.
"A zero waste approach is not only good news for climate stability,
it's also good news for America's businesses and economy," said Eric
Lombardi, a report co-author and director of the Boulder, Colorado-
based Eco-Cycle.
"Stop Trashing the Climate" urges a local and national 20-year goal of
zero waste. We can get there, the authors argue, by not subsidizing
landfills and incinerators, putting an end to waste incineration,
composting biodegradable materials and expanding the nationwide
infrastructure for reuse, recycling and composting.
As part of World Environment Day, community supporters of better
recycling and composting lobbied officials in several parts of the
country, including Tallahassee; Providence, Rhode Island; Bridgeport,
Connecticut; Los Angeles; and Massachusetts.
Return to Table of Contents
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
From: Boston Globe, Apr. 12, 2008
[Printer-friendly version]
TRANS-FATS LINKED TO BREAST CANCER RISK
Study examines eating habits
By Reuters
WASHINGTON -- Trans-fats, which are being phased out of food because
they clog arteries, may raise the risk of getting breast cancer,
European researchers reported yesterday.
They found that women with the highest blood levels of trans-fats had
about twice the risk of breast cancer compared with women with the
lowest levels.
"At this stage, we can only recommend limiting the consumption of
processed foods, the source of industrially produced trans-fatty
acid," the researchers wrote in the American Journal of
Epidemiology.
Trans-fats or trans-fatty acids are made in creating artificially
hardened fats -- in the process of hydrogenization, for instance.
They were, ironically, meant to be healthful replacements for artery-
clogging saturated fats such as butter and lard.
But the process of making vegetable oil behave like butter made it as
unhealthful as butter. New York and California have banned trans-fats
in restaurant foods. Canada and Britain have considered it and
countless food companies have dropped them as an ingredient.
Veronique Chajes of the French national scientific research center at
the University of Paris-South and colleagues studied women taking part
in a large European cancer trial. They looked at blood samples
collected between 1995 and 1998 from 25,000 women who had volunteered
to report on their eating and lifestyle habits and then be followed
for years to see if they developed cancer.
Return to Table of Contents
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
From: New York Times, Jun. 3, 2008
[Printer-friendly version]
EXPERTS REVIVE DEBATE OVER CELLPHONES AND CANCER
By Tara Parker-Pope
What do brain surgeons know about cellphone safety that the rest of us
don't?
Last week, three prominent neurosurgeons told the CNN interviewer
Larry King that they did not hold cellphones next to their ears. "I
think the safe practice," said Dr. Keith Black, a surgeon at Cedars-
Sinai Medical Center in Los Angeles, "is to use an earpiece so you
keep the microwave antenna away from your brain."
Dr. Vini Khurana, an associate professor of neurosurgery at the
Australian National University who is an outspoken critic of
cellphones, said: "I use it on the speaker-phone mode. I do not hold
it to my ear." And CNN's chief medical correspondent, Dr. Sanjay
Gupta, a neurosurgeon at Emory University Hospital, said that like Dr.
Black he used an earpiece.
Along with Senator Edward M. Kennedy's recent diagnosis of a glioma, a
type of tumor that critics have long associated with cellphone use,
the doctors' remarks have helped reignite a long-simmering debate
about cellphones and cancer.
That supposed link has been largely dismissed by many experts,
including the American Cancer Society. The theory that cellphones
cause brain tumors "defies credulity," said Dr. Eugene Flamm, chairman
of neurosurgery at Montefiore Medical Center.
According to the Food and Drug Administration, three large
epidemiology studies since 2000 have shown no harmful effects. CTIA --
the Wireless Association, the leading industry trade group, said in a
statement, "The overwhelming majority of studies that have been
published in scientific journals around the globe show that wireless
phones do not pose a health risk."
The F.D.A. notes, however, that the average period of phone use in the
studies it cites was about three years, so the research doesn't answer
questions about long-term exposures. Critics say many studies are
flawed for that reason, and also because they do not distinguish
between casual and heavy use.
Cellphones emit non-ionizing radiation, waves of energy that are too
weak to break chemical bonds or to set off the DNA damage known to
cause cancer. There is no known biological mechanism to explain how
non-ionizing radiation might lead to cancer.
But researchers who have raised concerns say that just because science
can't explain the mechanism doesn't mean one doesn't exist. Concerns
have focused on the heat generated by cellphones and the fact that the
radio frequencies are absorbed mostly by the head and neck. In recent
studies that suggest a risk, the tumors tend to occur on the same side
of the head where the patient typically holds the phone.
Like most research on the subject, the studies are observational,
showing only an association between cellphone use and cancer, not a
causal relationship. The most important of these studies is called
Interphone, a vast research effort in 13 countries, including Canada,
Israel and several in Europe.
Some of the research suggests a link between cellphone use and three
types of tumors: glioma; cancer of the parotid, a salivary gland near
the ear; and acoustic neuroma, a tumor that essentially occurs where
the ear meets the brain. All these cancers are rare, so even if
cellphone use does increase risk, the risk is still very low.
Last year, The American Journal of Epidemiology published data from
Israel finding a 58 percent higher risk of parotid gland tumors among
heavy cellphone users. Also last year, a Swedish analysis of 16
studies in the journal Occupational and Environmental Medicine showed
a doubling of risk for acoustic neuroma and glioma after 10 years of
heavy cellphone use.
"What we're seeing is suggestions in epidemiological studies that have
looked at people using phones for 10 or more years," says Louis
Slesin, editor of Microwave News, an industry publication that tracks
the research. "There are some very disconcerting findings that suggest
a problem, although it's much too early to reach a conclusive view."
Some doctors say the real concern is not older cellphone users, who
began using phones as adults, but children who are beginning to use
phones today and face a lifetime of exposure.
"More and more kids are using cellphones," said Dr. Paul J. Rosch,
clinical professor of medicine and psychiatry at New York Medical
College. "They may be much more affected. Their brains are growing
rapidly, and their skulls are thinner."
For people who are concerned about any possible risk, a simple
solution is to use a headset. Of course, that option isn't always
convenient, and some critics have raised worries about wireless
devices like the Bluetooth that essentially place a transmitter in the
ear.
The fear is that even if the individual risk of using a cellphone is
low, with three billion users worldwide, even a minuscule risk would
translate into a major public health concern.
"We cannot say with any certainty that cellphones are either safe or
not safe," Dr. Black said on CNN. "My concern is that with the
widespread use of cellphones, the worst scenario would be that we get
the definitive study 10 years from now, and we find out there is a
correlation."
Copyright 2008 The New York Times Company
Return to Table of Contents
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
From: Organic Consumers Association, Jun. 5, 2008
[Printer-friendly version]
GMOS WILL ONLY MAKE THE GLOBAL FOOD CRISIS WORSE
Dr. Mae-Wan Ho warns that further indulgence in GMOs will severely
damage our chances of surviving the food crisis and global warming;
organic agriculture and localised food systems are the way forward
Invited lecture at conference on TRADITIONAL SEEDS OUR NATIONAL
TREASURE AND HERITAGE, 17 May 2008, Bewelder, Warsaw, Poland
By Dr. Mae-Wan Ho
The Brave New World of GM Science
In 1994, I met some of the most remarkable leaders in the Third World:
Tewolde Berhan Gebre Egziabher (Institute of Sustainable Development,
Addis Ababa, Ethiopia), Martin Khor (Third World Network, Penang,
Malaysia), and Vandana Shiva (Navdanya, New Delhi, India), who
persuaded me to look into genetically modified organisms (GMOs),
especially GM crops, which they rightly saw as a special threat to
small family farmers. The biotech industry was promising miracle GM
crops that would boost yield to feed the world, improve nutrition, and
clean up and protect the environment. Monsanto's Flavr Savr tomato,
the first GM crop, had just been commercialised, though it turned out
to be a complete flop, and was withdrawn several years later..
The biotech industry's aggressive campaign of disinformation and
manipulation of science did nothing to obscure the signs that the
dream would soon turn into nightmare; and I said so in my book first
published in 1997/1998 [1] Genetic Engineering Dream or Nightmare,
the Brave New World of Bad Science and Big Business, which became an
international bestseller, translated into many languages, and recently
reprinted with an extended introduction to coincide with its
translation into Indonesian. Everything predicted in that book has
happened. It also explained why the science behind GM is obsolete; a
story elaborated further in Living with the Fluid Genome [2]
published in 2003.
Genetic modification based on an obsolete theory and hence
ineffective and dangerous
Genetic engineering of plants and animals began in the mid 1970s in
the belief that the genome (the totality of all the genetic material
of a species) is constant and static, and that the characteristics of
organism are simply hardwired in their genome. But geneticists soon
discovered that the genome is remarkably dynamic and "˜fluid', and
constantly in conversation with the environment. This determines which
genes are turned on, when, where, by how much and for how long.
Moreover, the genetic material itself could also be marked or changed
according to experience, and the influence passed on to the next
generation.
The best thing about the human genome project is to finally explode
the myth of genetic determinism, revealing the layers of molecular
complexity that transmit, interpret and rewrite the genetic texts [3]
(Life Beyond the Central Dogma series, SiS 24). These processes are
precisely orchestrated and finely tuned by the organism as a whole, in
a highly coordinated molecular "˜dance of life' that's necessary for
survival.
In contrast, genetic engineering in the laboratory is crude, imprecise
and invasive. The rogue genes inserted into a genome to make a GMO
could land anywhere; typically in a rearranged or defective form,
scrambling and mutating the host genome, and have the tendency to move
or rearrange further once inserted, basically because they do not know
the dance of life. That's ultimately why genetic modification doesn't
work and is also dangerous.
Independent science against GM
In 1999, I co-founded the Institute of Science in Society (ISIS) with
my husband and long-time collaborator Peter Saunders, Professor of
Mathematics at King's College, London, to work for science, society
and sustainability and to reclaim science for the public good. We are
fortunate to have the support of wonderful fellow scientists,
especially Prof. Joe Cummins, who joined ISIS from the start and
continues to play the leading role in monitoring GM science. (Joe
Cummins has been honoured with the ISIS Distinguished Fellow Award
2008.)
In 2003, dozens of scientists from around the world joined us in ISIS
to form the Independent Science Panel, and produced a report, The
Case for A GM-Free Sustainable World [4], documenting all the
problems and hazards of GM crops as well as the successes and benefits
of non-GM sustainable agriculture. The report was republished within a
year, translated into many languages and widely circulated. We
presented the report to the European Parliament in 2004 [5] (Keep GM
Out of Europe, SiS 24), with the help of Jill Evans MEP.
In 2007, we updated the ISP report with a dossier containing more than
160 fully referenced articles from the archives of ISIS' magazine
Science in Society, spelling out the scandals of serious hazards
ignored, scientific fraud, the regulatory sham and violation of
farmers' rights [6] (GM Science Exposed: Hazards Ignored, Fraud,
Regulatory Sham, Violation of Farmers Rights). Duped farmers in India
are driven to suicide in hundreds of thousands. GM science is a crime
against humanity.
In a scientific review paper [7] (GM Food Nightmare Unfolding in the
Regulatory Sham), we documented how national and international
regulators and advisory bodies such as the European Food Safety
Authority have been ignoring the precautionary principle (which is
accepted by the European Commission), abusing science, sidestepping
the law, and helping to promote GM technology in the face of evidence
piling up against the safety of GM food and feed.
We presented our dossier and review paper to the European Parliament
in June 2007, once again to press for a GM-Free Europe and a GM-free
world, thanks to the sponsorship of Polish MEP Mr. Janusz
Wojciechowski and his office. Our panel consisted of key scientists
from six countries including Poland, and friends of independent
scientists, including MEPs Dr. Caroline Lucas and Jill Evans.
The case for a GM-free world has grown much stronger since 2004, not
only because so much more evidence has stacked up against GM crops;
but especially because accelerating global warming, the depletion of
water and fossil fuels, and the current food crisis make it that much
more urgent to shift comprehensively to sustainable food and energy
systems as proposed in ISIS/TWN's energy report Which Energy? [8].
There is neither the time nor resources to waste on GM.
We'd had 30 years of GMOs and more than enough damage done, as
detailed in the ISP Report [4], in our GM Science dossier [6], and
more recent evidence has been piling up.
Thirty years of GMOs are more than enough
** No increase in yields; on the contrary GM soya decreased yields by
up to 20 percent compared with non-GM soya [4], and up to 100 percent
failures of Bt cotton have been recorded in India [6]. New studies
confirmed these findings. Research from the University of Kansas found
a 10 percent yield drag for Roundup Ready soya [9] that required extra
manganese applied to the soil to make up the yield deficit. A team of
scientists from the USDA and the University of Georgia found growing
GM cotton in the US could result in a drop in income by up to 40
percent [10, 11] (Transgenic Cotton Offers No Advantage, SiS 38)
** No reduction in pesticides use; on the contrary, USDA data showed
that GM crops increase pesticide use by 50 million pounds from 1996 to
2003 in the United States [4]. New data paint an even grimmer picture:
** The use of glyphosate on major crops went up more than 15-fold
between 1994 and 2005, along with increases in other herbicides [12]
in order to cope with rising glyphosate resistant superweeds [6].
Roundup tolerant canola volunteers are top among the worries of
Canadian farmers [13, 14] (Study Based on Farmers' Experience Exposes
Risks of GM Crops, SiS 38)
** Roundup herbicide is lethal to frogs and toxic to human placental
and embryonic cells [6]. Roundup is used in more than 80 percent of
all GM crops planted in the world
** GM crops harm wildlife, as revealed by UK's farm scale evaluations
[6], and more recently in a study led by Loyola University, Chicago,
Illinois in the United Stated, which found that wastes from Bt corn
impaired the growth of a common aquatic insect [15, 16] (Bt Crops
Threaten Aquatic Ecosystems, SiS 36)
** Bt resistance pests and Roundup tolerant superweeds render the two
major GM crop traits practically useless [6]. A recent review
concluded that [17] "evolved glyphosate-resistant weeds are a major
risk for the continued success of glyphosate and transgenic
glyphosate-resistant crops." And the evolution of Bt resistant
bollworms worldwide have now been confirmed and documented in more
than a dozen fields in Mississippi and Arkansas between 2003 and 2006
[18]
** Vast areas of forests, pampas and cerrados lost to GM soya in Latin
America, 15 m hectares in Argentina alone [6]; and this has worsened
considerably with the demand for biofuels (see later)
** Epidemic of suicides in the cotton belt of India involving 100 000
farmers between 1993-2003, and a further 16 000 farmers a year have
died since Bt cotton was introduced [6]
** Transgene contamination unavoidable, scientists find GM pollination
of non-GM crops and wild relatives 21 kilometres away [19]
** GM food and feed linked to deaths and sicknesses both in the fields
in India and in lab tests around the world (more below)
GM food and feed inherently hazardous to health [7]
Here are some highlights from our GM Science dossier [6] on the
hazards of GM food and feed. Dr. Irina Ermakova of the Russian Academy
of Sciences showed how GM soya made female rats give birth to severely
stunted and abnormal litters, with more than half dying in three
weeks, and those remaining are sterile. Hundreds of villagers and
cotton handlers in India suffer allergy-like symptoms, thousands of
sheep died after grazing on the Bt cotton residues, goat and cows as
well were reported in 2007 and 2008 [20] (Mass Protests against GM
Crops in India, SiS 38). A harmless bean protein transferred to pea
when tested on mice cause severe inflammation in the lungs and
provoked generalised food sensitivities. Dozens of villagers in the
south of the Philippines fell ill when neighbouring GM maize fields
came into flower in 2003, five have died and some remain ill to this
day. A dozen cows died having eaten GM maize in Hesse Germany and more
in the herd had to be slaughtered from mysterious illnesses. Arpad
Pusztai and his colleagues in the UK found GM potatoes with snowdrop
lectin damaged every organ system of young rats; the stomach lining
grew twice as thick as controls. Chickens fed GM maize Chardon LL were
twice as likely to die as controls. And finally, GM maize Mon 863 was
claimed to be as safe as non-GM maize by the company, and accepted as
such by European Food Safety Authority. But independent scientists of
CriiGen in France re-analysed the data and found signs of liver and
kidney toxicity.
[A longer version of this article, with charts and illustrations is
available online.]
[1] Ho MW. Genetic Engineering Dream of Nightmare? The Brave New World
of Bad Science and Big Business, Third World Network, Gateway Books,
MacMillan, Continuum, Penang, Malaysia, Bath, UK, Dublin, Ireland, New
York, USA, 1998, 1999, 2007 (reprint with extended Introduction).
[2] Ho MW. Living with the Fluid Genome, ISIS & TWN, London and
Penang, 2003.
[3] Ho MW. Life beyond the Central Dogma series, Science in Society
24, 4-13, 2004.
[4] Ho MW and Lim LC. The Case for a GM-Free Sustainable World,
Independent Science Panel Report, Institute of Science in Society and
Third World Network, London and Penang, 2003; republished GM-Free,
Exposing the Hazards of Biotechnology to Ensure the Integrity of Our
Food Supply, Vitalhealth Publishing, Ridgefield, Ct., 2004 (both
available from ISIS online bookstore.
[5] Lim LC. Keep GM out of Europe! Science in Society 24, 26-27, 2004.
[6] GM Science Exposed: Hazards Ignored, Fraud, Regulatory Sham and
Violation of Farmers' Rights, ISIS CD book, 2007.
[7] Ho MW, Cummins J and Saunders PT. GM food nightmare unfolding in
the regulatory sham. Microbial Ecology in Health and Disease 2007,
Disease 2007, 19, 66-77.
[8] Ho MW, Bunyard P, Saunders PT, Bravo E and Gala R. Which Energy?
2006 ISIS Energy Report, Institute of Science in Society, London,
2006.
[9] Gordon B. Better Crops 2007, 91, 12-14.
[10] Jost P, Shurley D, Culpepper S, Roberts P, Nichols R, Reeves J
and Anthony S. Economic Comparison of transgenic and montransgenic
cotton production systems in Georgia. Agronomy Journal 2008, 100,
42-51. (doi:10.2134/agronj2006.0259)
[11] Ho MW and Saunders PT. Transgenic cotton offers no advantage,
Science in Society 38 (in press).
[12] Who benefits from gm crops? The rise in pesticide use, executive
summary, Friends of the Earth International, Amsterdam, January 2008.
[13] Mauro IJ and McLachlan SM. Farmer knowledge and risk analysis:
postrelease evalulation of herbicide-tolerant canola in Western
Canada. Risk Analysis 2008, 28, DOI:10.1111/j.1539-6924.200801027.x
[14] Ho MW. Study based on farmers' experience exposes risks of GM
crops. Science in Society 38 (in press).
[15] Rosi-Marxhall EJ, Tank JL, Royer TV, Whiles MR, Evans-White M,
Chamgers C, Griffiths NA, Pokelsek J and Stephen ML. Toxins in
transgenic crop byproducts may affect headwater stream ecosystems.
PNAS 2007, 104, 16204-8.
[16] Ho MW. Bt crops threaten aquatic ecosystems. Science in Society
36, 49, 2007.
[17] Powles, SB. Evolved glyphosate-resistant weeds around the world:
lessons to be learnt. Pest Management Science 2008, 64, 360-5.
[18] "First documented case of pest resistance to biotech cotton"
Science Daily, 8 February 2008.
[19] Van de Water PK, Watrud LS, Lee EH, Burdick C and King GA. Long-
distance GM pollen movement of creeping bentgrass using modelled wind
trajectory analysis. Ecological Applications 2007, 17, 1244-56.
[20] Kurunganti K. Mass protests against GM crops in India. Science in
Society 38 (in press).
[21] Cummins J and Ho MW. Approval of GM crops illegal, US federal
courts rule. Science in Society 34, 24, 2007.
[22] "An American court bans genetically modified alfalfa -- How will
Ottawa react: CNW TELBEC, 4 May 2007.
[23] "D.C. Circuit Court says "no" to Scotts and Monsanto on biotech
grasses", Center for Food Safety Press Release, 19 March 2008.
[24] History of AB 541, Californians for GE-Free Agriculture,
[25] "Montville: first U.S. town outside of California to ban
genetically engineered crops", Food for Maine's Future, 29 March
2008.
[26] "GM crop ban extended indefinitely in SA", The Land, 18 April
2008.
[27] "Romania joins EU members in GM crop ban", Matt Williams, The
Parliament.com, 28 March 2008.
[28] Ho MW, Saunders PT and Jost M. Croatia to be organic and GM-Free.
Science in Society 38 (in press)
[29] "Greenpeace applauds Greek ban on GMO corn," ANA-MPA, 7 May
2008.
[30] "Germany tightens restrictions on genetically modified corn,"
Der Spiegel, 9 May 2007.
[31] "Government to back bid to ban GM crops in Europe", Sunday
Herald, 25 November 2007.
[32] "French state body upholds decision of GM crop ban",
Reuters.com, 21 March 2008.
[33] "French Senate approves GMO law", Reuters, 18 April 2008.
[34] "Wales set to ban GM crops", Steve Dube, icWales.co.uk, 18 March
2008.
[35] GMO-free regions, biodiversity and rural development, GENET, May
2008.
[36] Ho MW. GM-free Europe beginning? Science in Society 36, 51, 2007.
[37] "EU food agency under fire as commission debates GMOs", Friends
of the Earth Europe, Greenpeace Press Release, 7 May 2008.
[38] International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science &
Technology (IAASTD) Synthesis Report 25 November 2007.
[39] Ho MW, Burcher S, Lim LC, et al. Food Futures Now, Organic,
Sustainable, Fossil Fuel Free, ISIS and TWN, London, 2008.
[40] Ho MW. GM-free organic agriculture to feed the world.
International panel of 400 Agricultural scientists call for
fundamental change in farming practice. Science in Society 38 (in
press).
[41] "Puncturing the GM myths", Interview of Dr. Mae-Wan Ho by
Anastasia Stephens of the Evening Standard, Science in Society 22,
23-25, 2004.
[42] "Farmers ask why GM crops worse in drought", Network of
Concerned Farmers, 30 June 2005.
[43] Manifesto on Climate Change and the Future of Food Security, The
International Commission on the Future of Food and Agriculture,
Florence, Italy, 2008.
[44] Ho MW. Beware the new "doubly green revolution". Science in
Society 37, 26-29, 2008.
Return to Table of Contents
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
From: Community Environmental Legal Defense Fund, Jun. 12, 2008
[Printer-friendly version]
PACKER TWP, PENNSYLVNIA, PASSES LAW CONTROLLING CORPORATIONS
Municipal government bans corporate sewage sludge dumping; becomes
third community in nation to ban chemical bodily trespass; strips
corporations of claim to constitutional "rights."
Ordinance recognizes the rights of nature; asserts civil rights of
residents to sue corporations as state actors
Chambersburg, Pennsylvania -- On June 11, 2008, the Board of
Supervisors for Packer Township in Carbon County, Pennsylvania, voted
unanimously to enact a law that bans corporations from dumping sewage
sludge as "fertilizer" and for "mine reclamation."
The Ordinance also states as a matter of law that, within the
community, corporations possess no constitutional "rights," privileges
or immunities intended for people. The community included this
provision as a challenge to corporate representatives who use court-
bestowed constitutional "rights" and legal privileges to nullify local
laws and override the legitimate rights of citizens.
Board Chairman Thomas Gerhard stated, "We felt that it was in the best
interests of the residents to adopt the ordinance."
In adopting the law, Packer Township became the third local government
in the country to define liability and impose penalties for chemical
bodily trespass, following the lead of the Town of Halifax, Virginia,
and Mahanoy Township in Schuylkill County, Pennsylvania.
The people of Packer Township also included a provision that
recognizes the right of natural communities and ecosystems to exist
and flourish within the Township, joining nine other communities that
have asserted environmental protection as an enforceable right rather
than a matter of discretionary convenience.
The Packer Township law
1) Bans corporations from engaging in the land application of sewage
sludge;
2) Bans persons from using corporations to engage in the land
application of sewage sludge;
3) Provides for the testing of sewage sludge prior to land application
by individuals, with testing costs to be borne by the applicant;
4) Prohibits chemical bodily trespass upon residents of the Township;
5) Establishes strict liability and burden of proof standards for
chemical trespass;
6) Removes claims to legal rights and protections from corporations
within the Township;
7) Recognizes and provides for enforcement of rights of residents,
natural communities and ecosystems;
8) Subordinates sludge hauling and disposing corporations to the
People of Packer Township;
9) Adopts Pennsylvania regulations as locally enforceable concerning
the land application of sewage sludge by individuals.
In the Ordinance, the Township Board of Supervisors declared that if
state and federal agencies -- or corporate managers -- attempt to
invalidate the Ordinance, a Township-wide public meeting would be
hosted to determine additional steps to expand local control and self-
governance within the Township.
The Ordinance was adopted following an attempt by nearby Tamaqua
Borough's Council Member Cathy Miorelli to investigate the dumping of
over thirty loads of sludge uphill from the Still Creek Reservoir in
Packer Township. The reservoir is the source of drinking water for
surrounding communities, including Tamaqua.
Ms. Miorelli said that when she contacted the state's Department of
Environmental Protection (DEP) she hit a roadblock. "I asked [Tim
Craven, the DEP representative] if the substance was permitted. He
said he didn't know and it would be pretty difficult for him to find
out." Craven then suggested the Council Member contact the land owner,
but Ms. Miorelli advised the DEP rep that such an investigation seemed
to be his responsibility. Pressing the issue, she was able to convince
Mr. Craven to contact the land-owner, and in a follow-up call was told
the land owner reported the substance to be "lime."
According to a Times-News report "Everything changed on April 2, when
Miorelli got a phone call from Craven, apologizing to her and saying
that she in fact was correct and it was biosolid material [a PR term
for sewage sludge developed by industry and adopted by State and
federal agencies] from Philipsburg, N.J. that was dumped in the
fields.
"Mayor Christian Morrison took issue with the fact that the DEP
officials apparently lied and did not perform the appropriate
inspections.
"'This community has lost faith in DEP and this just doesn't help,' he
said."
Ben Price, Projects Director for the Community Environmental Legal
Defense Fund, the organization that helped draft the Packer Township
Ordinance said, "Once again, the people living within Pennsylvania
municipalities have concluded that they must rely on themselves, and
assert their right to govern locally on issues that directly impact
the local community and environment. In the face of an apparent State
policy of covering up and enabling waste hauling corporations to wield
unjust law against Pennsylvanians and profit at the expense of our
communities, Pennsylvanians are standing up."
Passage of this Ordinance is especially significant at this time,
since the Pennsylvania Attorney General is suing neighboring East
Brunswick Township for adopting a similar Ordinance. Acting as private
litigator for agribusiness and sludge corporations, under authority of
a State statute lobbied for heavily by these industries, the PA
Attorney General recently filed a legal brief requesting the court
overturn East Brunswick's Ordinance without giving the community its
day in court. In that brief, the top law enforcement officer in
Pennsylvania made this unequivocal statement his core argument for
nullifying the local law: "There is no inalienable right to local
self-government."
It's a point of view we see played out every day in communities across
Pennsylvania and the United States. By enacting their new Ordinance,
the community government of Packer Township has outshone its State
counterpart by recognizing that the consent of the governed is a
prerequisite for just governments and law.
The Community Environmental Legal Defense Fund, located in
Chambersburg, has been working with people in Pennsylvania since 1995
to assert their fundamental rights to democratic self-governance, and
to enact laws which end destructive and rights-denying corporate
action aided and abetted by state and federal governments.
Return to Table of Contents
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
From: National Geographic, Jun. 1, 2008
[Printer-friendly version]
TAPPED OUT
World oil demand is surging as supplies approach their limits.
By Paul Roberts
In 2000 a Saudi oil geologist named Sadad I. Al Husseini made a
startling discovery. Husseini, then head of exploration and production
for the state-owned oil company, Saudi Aramco, had long been skeptical
of the oil industry's upbeat forecasts for future production. Since
the mid-1990s he had been studying data from the 250 or so major oil
fields that produce most of the world's oil. He looked at how much
crude remained in each one and how rapidly it was being depleted, then
added all the new fields that oil companies hoped to bring on line in
coming decades. When he tallied the numbers, Husseini says he realized
that many oil experts "were either misreading the global reserves and
oil-production data or obfuscating it."
Where mainstream forecasts showed output rising steadily each year in
a great upward curve that kept up with global demand, Husseini's
calculations showed output leveling off, starting as early as 2004.
Just as alarming, this production plateau would last 15 years at best,
after which the output of conventional oil would begin "a gradual but
irreversible decline."
That is hardly the kind of scenario we've come to expect from Saudi
Aramco, which sits atop the world's largest proven oil reserves --
some 260 billion barrels, or roughly a fifth of the world's known
crude -- and routinely claims that oil will remain plentiful for many
more decades. Indeed, according to an industry source, Saudi oil
minister Ali al- Naimi took a dim view of Husseini's report, and in
2004 Husseini retired from Aramco to become an industry consultant.
But if he is right, a dramatic shift lies just ahead for a world whose
critical systems, from defense to transportation to food production,
all run on cheap, abundant oil.
Husseini isn't the first to raise the specter of a peak in global oil
output. For decades oil geologists have theorized that when half the
world's original endowment of oil has been extracted, getting more out
of the ground each year will become increasingly difficult, and
eventually impossible. Global output, which has risen steadily from
fewer than a million barrels a day in 1900 to around 85 million
barrels today, will essentially stall. Ready or not, we will face a
post-oil future -- a future that could be marked by recession and even
war, as the United States and other big oil importers jockey for
access to secure oil resources.
Forecasts of peak oil are highly controversial -- not because anyone
thinks oil will last forever, but because no one really knows how much
oil remains underground and thus how close we are to reaching the
halfway point. So-called oil pessimists contend that a peak is
imminent or has actually arrived, as Husseini believes, hidden behind
day-to-day fluctuations in production. That might help explain why
crude oil prices have been rising steadily and topped a hundred
dollars a barrel early this year.
Optimists, by contrast, insist the turning point is decades away,
because the world has so much oil yet to be tapped or even discovered,
as well as huge reserves of "unconventional" oil, such as the massive
tar-sand deposits in western Canada. Optimists also note that in the
past, whenever doomsayers have predicted an "imminent" peak, a new
oil-field discovery or oil-extraction technology allowed output to
keep rising. Indeed, when Husseini first published his forecasts in
2004, he says, optimists dismissed his conclusions "as curious
footnotes."
Many industry experts continue to argue that today's high prices are
temporary, the result of technical bottlenecks, sharply rising demand
from Asia, and a plummeting dollar. "People will run out of demand
before they run out of oil," BP's chief economist declared at a
meeting early this year. Other optimists, however, are wavering. Not
only have oil prices soared to historic levels, but unlike past
spikes, those prices haven't generated a surge in new output.
Ordinarily, higher prices encourage oil companies to invest more in
new exploration technologies and go after difficult-to-reach oil
fields. The price surge that followed the Iran-Iraq war in the 1980s,
for example, eventually unleashed so much new oil that markets were
glutted. But for the past few years, despite a sustained rise in
price, global conventional oil output has hovered around 85 million
barrels a day, which happens to be just where Husseini's calculations
suggested output would begin to level off.
The change is so stark that the oil industry itself has lost some of
its cockiness. Last fall, after the International Energy Agency
released a forecast showing global oil demand rising more than a third
by 2030, to 116 million barrels a day, several oil-company executives
voiced doubts that production could ever keep pace. Speaking to an
industry conference in London, Christophe de Margerie, head of the
French oil giant Total, flatly declared that the "optimistic case" for
maximum daily output was 100 million barrels -- meaning global demand
could outstrip supply before 2020. And in January, Royal Dutch Shell's
CEO, Jeroen van der Veer, estimated that "after 2015 supplies of easy-
to-access oil and gas will no longer keep up with demand."
To be sure, veteran oilmen like de Margerie and van der Veer don't
talk about peak oil in a geologic sense. In their view, political and
economic factors above ground, rather than geologic ones below, are
the main obstacles to raising output. War-torn Iraq is said to have
huge underground oil reserves, yet because of poor security, it
produces about a fifth as much as Saudi Arabia does. And in countries
such as Venezuela and Russia, foreign oil companies face restrictive
laws that hamper their ability to develop new wells and other
infrastructure. "The issue over the medium term is not whether there
is oil to be produced," says Edward Morse, a former State Department
oil expert who now analyzes markets for Lehman Brothers, "but rather
how to overcome political obstacles to production."
Yet even oil optimists concede that physical limits are beginning to
loom. Consider the issue of discovery rates. Oil can't be pumped from
the ground until it has been found, and yet the volume discovered each
year has steadily fallen since the early 1960s'despite dazzling
technological advances, including computer-assisted seismic imaging
that allows companies to "see" oil deep below the Earth's surface. One
reason for the decline is simple mathematics: Most of the big, easily
located fields -- the so-called "elephants" -- were discovered decades
ago, and the remaining fields tend to be small. Not only are they
harder to find than big fields, but they must also be found in greater
numbers to produce as much oil. Last November, for example, oil
executives were ecstatic over the discovery off the Brazilian coast of
a field called Tupi, thought to be the biggest find in seven years.
And yet with as much as eight billion barrels, Tupi is about a
fifteenth the size of Saudi Arabia's legendary Ghawar, which held
about 120 billion barrels at its discovery in 1948.
Smaller fields also cost more to operate than larger ones do. "The
world has zillions of little fields," says Matt Simmons, a Houston
investment banker who has studied the oil discovery trend. "But the
problem is, you need a zillion oil rigs to get at them all." This cost
disparity is one reason the industry prefers to rely on large fields
-- and why they supply more than a third of our daily output.
Unfortunately, because most of the biggest finds were made decades
ago, much of our oil is coming from mature fields that are now
approaching their peaks, or are even in decline; output is plummeting
in once prolific regions such as the North Sea and Alaska's North
Slope.
Worldwide, output from existing fields is falling by as much as 8
percent a year, which means that oil companies must develop up to
seven million barrels a day in additional capacity simply to keep
current output steady -- plus many more millions of barrels to meet
the growth in demand of about 1.5 percent a year. And yet, with
declining field sizes, rising costs, and political barriers, finding
those new barrels is getting harder and harder. Many of the biggest
oil companies, including Shell and Mexico's state-owned Pemex, are
actually finding less oil each year than they sell.
As more and more existing fields mature, and as global oil demand
continues to grow, the deficit will widen substantially. By 2010,
according to James Mulva, CEO of ConocoPhillips, nearly 40 percent of
the world's daily oil output will have to come from fields that have
not been tapped -- or even discovered. By 2030 nearly all our oil will
come from fields not currently in operation. Mulva, for one, isn't
sure enough new oil can be pumped. At a conference in New York last
fall, he predicted output would stall at 100 million barrels a day --
the same figure Total's chief had projected. "And the reason," Mulva
said, "is, where is all that going to come from?"
Whatever the ceiling turns out to be, one prediction seems secure: The
era of cheap oil is behind us. If the past is any guide, the world may
be in for a rough ride. In the early 1970s, during the Arab oil
embargo, U.S. policymakers considered desperate measures to keep oil
supplies flowing, even drawing up contingency plans to seize Middle
Eastern oil fields.
Washington backed away from military action then, but such tensions
are likely to reemerge. Since Saudi Arabia and other members of the
Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries control 75 percent of
the world's total oil reserves, their output will peak substantially
later than that of other oil regions, giving them even more power over
prices and the world economy. A peak or plateau in oil production will
also mean that, with rising population, the amount of gasoline,
kerosene, and diesel available for each person on the planet may be
significantly less than it is today. And if that's bad news for
energy-intensive economies, such as the United States, it could be
disastrous for the developing world, which relies on petroleum fuels
not just for transport but also for cooking, lighting, and irrigation.
Husseini worries that the world has been slow to wake up to the
prospect. Fuel-efficient cars and alternatives such as biofuels will
compensate for some of the depleted oil supplies, but the bigger
challenge may be inducing oil-hungry societies to curb demand. Any
meaningful discussion about changes in our energy-intensive
lifestyles, says Husseini, "is still off the table." With the
inexorable arithmetic of oil depletion, it may not stay off the table
much longer.
==============
Paul Roberts is author of The End of Oil, published in 2004. His new
book, The End of Food, will be out this summer from Houghton Mifflin
Harcourt.
Return to Table of Contents
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Rachel's Democracy & Health News (formerly Rachel's Environment &
Health News) highlights the connections between issues that are
often considered separately or not at all.
The natural world is deteriorating and human health is declining
because those who make the important decisions aren't the ones who
bear the brunt. Our purpose is to connect the dots between human
health, the destruction of nature, the decline of community, the
rise of economic insecurity and inequalities, growing stress among
workers and families, and the crippling legacies of patriarchy,
intolerance, and racial injustice that allow us to be divided and
therefore ruled by the few.
In a democracy, there are no more fundamental questions than, "Who
gets to decide?" And, "How do the few control the many, and what
might be done about it?"
As you come across stories that might help people connect the dots,
please Email them to us at dhn@rachel.org.
Rachel's Democracy & Health News is published as often as
necessary to provide readers with up-to-date coverage of the
subject.
Editors:
Peter Montague - peter@rachel.org
Tim Montague - tim@rachel.org
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
|
|
