Fwd: Sowing The Seeds Of Insecurity by Geri Guidetti (Extremely Important To Future Of Human Race!)]

[Guest guest]

(Extremely Important To Future Of Human

 

--~->

>

 

>

>

>

> Friends:

> It would, literally, be impossible to overemphasize the

> importance

> of the article below. The future of the food supply of, not only

> mankind, but of all life may well be in jeopardy from the

> irresponsible

> manipulation of the genes in our food supply. We are assured that

> there

> is no danger, but what is actually happening in fields of the U.S.

> and

> around the world is proving that to be an outright lie.

> Please take the time to read this article and consider its

> implications for your future and that of the rest of the world.

> As the commercial used to say: IT AIN'T NICE TO FOOL WITH

>

> MOTHER NATURE!

> Al Burns

> P.S. Note the date of the article! What has happened in this field

>

> since the beginning of 2002?

>

>

------

> *Sowing The Seeds Of Insecurity*

> *The Future Of Our Food Supply*

> Food Supply Update - January 10, 2002

> By Geri Guidetti Copyright 2002

> _arkinst_

> _<www.arkinstitute.com>

> _

> An ill-wind blew across Percy Schmeiser's land in 1996. Today

> in his

> 70s, the third-generation Saskatchewan, Canada, farmer has been

> growing

> and improving his own canola (oil seed) crops for 40 years. Each

> year,

> he would save some of his harvested seed for planting the following

> year.

>

> Though some farmers in the surrounding area were growing

> Monsanto's

> patented, genetically modified (GM) Roundup Ready canola, Schmeiser

> was

> not. He was growing his own, but the wind blew and bees flew, both

> apparently carrying grains of GM pollen from neighboring fields

> into

> Schmeiser's crop. Or maybe it was GM seed transported from

> surrounding

> farms that often blew off trucks traveling the roads adjacent to

> Schmeiser's land.

>

> No matter. Without his knowledge or consent, errant, patented

> Monsanto genes had apparently been incorporated into some of the

> Schmeiser family's 1997-harvested canola seed.

> In 1998, the farmer planted over a thousand acres of his land

> with

> the seed he had saved from the previous year's crop. A hired

> Monsanto

> investigator analyzed samples of canola plants taken from Percy

> Schmeiser's land, and the company found evidence of its patented

> genes

> in the plant tissue.

>

> When Schmeiser refused to pay Monsanto fees for use of its

> patented

> herbicide resistance technology, technology he neither bought nor

> wanted, Monsanto sued him. According to a report on the trial

> (<http://www.percyschmeiser.com/www.percyschmeiser.com), Monsanto

> sought

> damages for patent infringement totaling $400,000. This included

> about

> $250,000 in legal fees, $13,500 for technology fees, $25,000 in

> punitive

> damages and $105,000 in the profits Schmeiser realized from sale of

> his

> contaminated 1998 crop.

>

> Monsanto vs. Percy Schmeiser was heard in a Canadian court June

> 5 -

> 20, 2000. According to reports, Monsanto never directly tried to

> explain

> how their genes got into Schmeiser's field. In fact, the Western

> Producer, a Canadian agriculture magazine, quoted Monsanto

> attorney,

> Roger Hughes, as saying, */ " Whether Mr. Schmeiser knew of the

> matter or

> not matters not at all. " /* In other words, Schmeiser's fields were

> contaminated by Monsanto's GM technology, and it didn't matter if

> Schmeiser was aware of the contamination or not. They were going to

> make

> him pay for it!

>

> Percy Schmeiser said, " It was a very frightening thing because

> they

> said it does not matter how it gets into a farmer's field; it's

> their

> property.......if I would go to St. Louis (Monsanto headquarters)

> and

> contaminate their plots--destroy what they have worked on for 40

> years--I think I would be put in jail and the key thrown away. "

>

> On March 29, 2001, nearly three years since the contaminated

> canola

> was discovered in Schmeiser's field, Canadian Judge W. Andrew

> MacKay

> agreed with Monsanto that it did not matter how its genes got onto

> Percy

> Schmeiser's fields; the farmer was still guilty of having them

> without

> having paid for the privilege. (You can read the entire decision at

>

> _http://www.fct-cf.gc.ca_ ). Sadly, as part of the damages, the

>

> farmer also lost 40 years of work improving his own canola seed

> line, as

> his crop was confiscated.

>

> As you might imagine, the decision has had a chilling effect on

>

> farmers here and around the world. The Washington Post reported

> that a

> National Farmers Union spokesman said the organization has been

> following the Monsanto vs. Schmeiser case */ " ...with apprehension.

> We're

> extremely concerned by what liabilities may unfold for the farmer,

> particularly with cross-pollination of genetically modified

> plants. "

>

> /* The National Farmers Union represents 300,000 U.S. farmers

> and

> ranchers. Monsanto has filed hundreds of similar patent

> infringement

> lawsuits against farmers in the U.S. and Canada. Some of those

> farmers

> in North Dakota and Illinois are counter-suing the company for

> deliberately causing genetic pollution and then suing its victims.

> Win

> or lose, many face financial ruin from the court battles alone.

>

> The Percy Schmeiser case, and others ongoing and to come, does

> not

> bode well for farmers, or even backyard gardeners, here or abroad.

> *The

> idea that individuals can be held legally and financially

> responsible

> for the fate of patented pollen and seed blown by the wind or

> carried by

> insects in open field conditions is simply absurd.* In fact,

> Monsanto

> knows it and maintained that all a farmer has to do if he or she

> discovers Monsanto's patented plants growing on their land is to

> call

> the company and they will come out and take care of the problem.

>

> For starters, how would a farmer even know his field had been

> contaminated with Roundup Ready GM canola? The plants are often

> visually

> indistinguishable. The only way he'd know is by spraying his crop

> with

> Monsanto's Roundup herbicide to see if it had resistance.

> Obviously, he

> wouldn't do that because the herbicide would kill his own

> non-resistant,

> non-GM crop!

>

> Percy Schmeiser and other farmers regularly spray Roundup

> around

> telephone poles surrounding their fields to keep them clear of

> crops and

> weeds. When Schmeiser had sprayed around his telephone poles in

> 1997, he

> was surprised to see that some of the canola plants did not die. He

>

> suspected contamination.

>

> If a farmer does identify GM plants in his field, according to

> Ann

> Clark of Plant Agriculture, University of Guelph, Guelph, Ontario,

> Monsanto would likely come out and spray the offending plants with

> the

> herbicide of choice, 2,4-D. But, as a farmer, would you call the

> company

> if their offending plants were interspersed with your own crop, the

>

> latter likely to be killed or damaged by the toxic herbicide? Such

> treatment would be especially catastrophic for an organic farmer

> whose

> field could no longer be certifiable as organic for years to come.

> For some perspective on the potential scope of the GM gene

> pollution

> problem, in the year 2000, Monsanto's GM seed was planted on 103

> million

> acres worldwide, accounting for 94% of the global area sown to

> genetically modified seed (RAFI). The potential for the GM

> contamination

> of millions of more acres of land and for thousands more victim

> farmers

> is simply mind-boggling. In fact, in June, 2001, Canadian CBC radio

>

> reported that genetically engineered canola plants had spread

> across the

> Canadian prairies.

>

> *University of Manitoba plant scientist, Martin Entz said that

> GM

> canola had spread much more rapidly than originally thought and

> that it

> was _ " absolutely impossible to control. " _

>

> * Impossible to control also describes another 2001 GM

> debacle--the

> contamination of U.S. food supplies with StarLink corn, a GM corn

> intended by French parent company, Aventis, for animal consumption

> only.

>

> StarLink contains an insecticidal toxin, Cry9C protein, 50-100

> times

> more than that in GM corn intended for humans. The protein had the

> potential to trigger severe allergic reactions. Aventis had assured

> EPA

> officials that StarLink would only be sold to farmers growing it

> for

> livestock. Dealers selling the corn would see to it that each

> farmer

> signed an agreement to provide a 660-foot buffer strip around his

> or her

> StarLink fields to prevent contamination of nearby cornfields with

> StarLink pollen. Grain elevators were also to be told at the time

> of

> sale that the corn was not for human consumption. *Sadly, virtually

>

> every level of the program to protect humans failed miserably.

>

> * During the year 1998, 10,000 acres in the U.S. were planted to

>

> StarLink. In 1999, it had grown to 250,000 acres. By 2000, StarLink

> corn

> was planted on 350,000 acres in the U.S. and co-mingled with other

> corns

> by 2200 farmers in 12 states, according to Seed Savers Exhange.

>

> During 2000, 98 of Iowa's 99 counties grew StarLink! About 10%

> of

> all corn stored in the U.S. is now contaminated with StarLink corn.

>

> In 2001, the USDA earmarked up to $20 million of taxpayers'

> money,

> money originally intended for natural disaster relief for farmers,

> to

> help buy back 300,000 to 400,000 bags of contaminated seed.

>

> *Containment, not control, was the only possible solution, as

> the

> damage to the U.S. seed stocks is _permanent_.* The genes are " out

> there " , replicating themselves in the chromosomes of other corn

> varieties meant for human consumption, and likely finding their way

> into

> any food containing corn products such as corn syrup and corn

> starch--nearly every sweetened, thickened product in the " modern "

> diet.

>

> If there is any reassuring news in this new reality, it is that

> the

> concentration of Cry9C is likely to be so low in current and future

>

> foods contaminated with the original StarLink genes that allergic

> reactions to this particular protein are highly improbable. That

> is,

> however, very small comfort given the scope and biological

> significance

> of this single genetic event.

>

> August, 2001, was a particular low point in the battle for a

> ban on

> the Terminator gene technology. Terminator technologies use genetic

>

> engineering techniques to program a plant's DNA to kill its own

> embryos

> (suicide seed) thus forming sterile seed. *The

> plant-to-seed-to-plant-to-seed, etc, cycle of life is broken,

> preventing

> a farmer from saving harvested seed to grow next season.* It will

> ensure

> that farmers must return to the seed company year after year to

> purchase

> expensive seed, often with heavy GM seed technology licensing fees

> added.

>

> The first Terminator was created and announced by our own U.S.

> Department of Agriculture in partnership with a U.S.-based cotton

> seed

> company, Delta & Pine Land Company. They were granted a U.S. patent

> on

> the technology in 1998. (See June, 1998 Food Supply Update at

> www.arkinstitute.com). In August, the USDA announced that it had

> agreed

> to license the technology to its corporate partner, the first step

> toward commercialization. Delta & Pine Land Co. has said it has

> every

> intention of commercializing it.

>

> */ " USDA's decision to license Terminator flies in the face of

> international public opinion and betrays the public trust, " /* said

> RAFI

> research-director, Hope Shand. */ " Terminator technology has been

> universally condemned by civil society; banned by international

> agricultural research institutes; censured by United Nations

> bodies....and yet the U.S. Government has officially sanctioned

> commercialization of the technology by licensing it to one of the

> world's largest seed companies. " /*

> Silvia Ribeiro, also of RAFI, added, */ " USDA's role in

> developing

> Terminator seeds is a disgraceful example of corporate welfare,

> involving a technology that is bad for farmers, dangerous for the

> environment, and disastrous for world food security. " /*

>

> The USDA and Delta & Pine Land Company, at last count, own

> three

> Terminator patents. This is an egregious use of U.S. taxpayers'

> dollars

> to support corporate profits instead of public good, to advance the

>

> portfolios of restrictive corporate patents on life instead of

> improving

> the lives and livelihoods of U.S. farmers and the consumers they

> serve.

> Terminator technologies will not be a boon to U.S. farmers or

> struggling

> Third World farmers who are considered prime targets for Terminator

>

> seeds. It will make them ever more dependent on the corporate seed

> and

> chemical companies.

>

> _*Remember, once the genetic genie is out of the bottle, you

> can't

> put it back.*_ If Terminator genes pollute surrounding fields and

> wild

> plants, the consequences will be far greater than the corn debacle.

>

> Neighboring farmer's crops may produce sterile seed. What if that

> farmer

> is a seed grower, growing seed stocks for the country's next crops?

>

> Multiply that scenario by tens of thousands of farmers. */Can

> Terminator

> eventually terminate all seeding plants? No one, not a single

> corporation or government official, can assure you it will not.

> Remember

> Percy Schmeiser! Remember StarLink!/*

>

> Here is a rundown of Terminator patent holdings current to

> 2001:

> Syngenta (Novartis) has two Terminator patents. Syngenta (Zeneca)

> has

> four. Delta & Pine Land/USDA have three. BASF (ExSeed Genetics,

> LLC/Iowa

> State University) have one. DuPont (Pioneer Hi-Bred) has one.

> Pharmacia

> (Monsanto) have one. Cornell Research Foundation has one. Purdue

> Research Foundation (with support from USDA) has one.

>

> It is important to take stock of where we have been in the big

> food

> picture in recent years because it speaks volumes about where we

> might

> be going this year and beyond. In light of the September attacks on

> the

> U.S., it is critical that we pay attention to every aspect of our

> food

> supply system with unprecedented vigilance.

>

> The truth about security with respect to food and terrorism is

> simple, really: *THERE IS NONE!* The Schmeiser decision, StarLink

> tragedy and Terminators all point to a future in which individuals

> will

> have little or no control over the content of the food they eat,

> and

> little control over production. If individuals are discouraged by

> court

> decisions from feeding themselves--if they abdicate all rights to

> control the ways and means of livelihood and food production,

> turning

> control over, like serfs, to their corporate lords, then we are

> lost.

> For years these Food Supply Updates have discussed the

> insanities of

> a food production system growing ever more concentrated,

> technology, oil

> and chemical dependent, biologically and chemically contaminated,

> remote

> from its nearly 300 million completely dependent consumers, and

> controlled, from seed to mouth, by a relative handful of very

> powerful

> people.

> The long list of cumulative observations and warnings voiced in

> this

> newsletter over the years (read earlier Food Supply Udates archived

> at

> _www.arkinstitute.com_ ) could just as easily be viewed as an

> ongoing

> tutorial for those determined to ferret out our vulnerabilities.

> Our

> vulnerabilities can easily become someone else's opportunities.

>

> We must keep one watchful eye on our current food supply

> security

> system, a " blanket " riddled with holes, and the other on the

> ongoing,

> ominous shift in the control of food from the farmer and consumer,

> to

> governments and a few very powerful, multinational corporations.

> How

> might our new agricultural technologies be used against us?

>

> *_Is Terminator gene technology a potential terrorist weapon?

> What

> is the relationship between " X " government with " Y " corporation?

> What is

> their global agenda?

>

> _* See what I mean? It is a daunting task, but more than ever, our

> lives

> may depend on it. Stay tuned.

>

> Geri Guidetti

> The Ark Institute

>

> Note: This and all Food Supply Updates may be reprinted or

> distributed electronically, only in their entirety, including

> attributes

> and contact information. They must be offered free of charge.

> Edited

> versions must receive prior consent of author. Food Supply Updates

> are

> archived at The Ark Institute's web site at _www.arkinstitute.com_.

>

> The Ark Institute PO Box 142 Oxford, Ohio 45056

> <_www.arkinstitute.com_>

> <_arkinst_>

>

>