Rachel's News #855: Nanotech Showdown

[Guest guest]

rachel

Rachel's News #855: Nanotech Showdown

Fri, 19 May 2006 17:32:45 -0400

 

 

..

..

 

 

 

 

More than 60 great speakers at 35 workshops and strategy

sessions. Pioneers of Precaution Award Ceremony & Concert

with superb musicians. The 1st National Conference on

Precaution June 9-11, 2006, in Baltimore. Register here.

 

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Rachel's Democracy & Health News #855

" Environment, health, jobs and justice--Who gets to decide? "

Thursday, May 18, 2006..................Printer-friendly version

www.rachel.org -- To make a secure donation,

 

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

 

Featured stories in this issue...

 

Nanotech Showdown

Eight public interest groups are forcing the Food and Drug

Administration (FDA) to confront the reality that nanotechnology

creates products that may be useful but may also be quite dangerous.

Up to now, the FDA has kept its head in the sand on this issue,

pretending there's no problem. Time for a major showdown.

Howard Zinn on Fixing What's Wrong

" People think there must be some magical tactic, beyond the

traditional ones -- protests, demonstrations, vigils, civil

disobedience -- but there is no magical panacea, only persistence. "

The Rotten Side of Organics -- Interview with Ronnie Cummins

" Part of the overall problem is that our social change and

progressive movement has been fragmented for the last 30 years. The

movements for health, justice and sustainability must work together in

this age of Peak Oil, permanent war, and climate chaos. "

The Coming War: Internet Democracy vs. Monopoly Capitalism

Until now, a basic principle of the Internet has been that the pipe

companies [who bring the internet into our homes] can't discriminate

among content providers. Everyone who puts stuff up on the Internet is

treated exactly the same. The net is neutral. But now the pipe

companies want to charge the content providers, depending on how fast

and reliably the pipes deliver the content. Presumably, the biggest

content providers would pay the most money, leaving the little content

people in the slowest and least-reliable parts of the pipe.

Biotech Firm Raises Furor Proposing Human Gene in Rice

Environmental groups, corporate food interests and thousands of

farmers across the country have succeeded in chasing Ventria

Bioscience's rice farms out of two states. And critics continue to

complain that Ventria is recklessly plowing ahead with a mostly

untested technology that threatens the safety of conventional crops

grown for food.

 

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::\

::::::::

 

Rachel's Democracy & Health News #855, May 18, 2006

[Printer-friendly version]

 

NANOTECH SHOWDOWN

 

By Tim Montague

 

Just in time for summer, a group of eight environmental and public

interest groups have petitioned the U.S. Food and Drug Administration

(FDA) to recall nanotech sunscreens from supermarket shelves. This

will force FDA to finally decide whether nano particles are something

radically new or not.

 

Nano particles are named for their small size (a nanometer is a

billionth of a meter), and nano particles are smaller than anything

humans have ever put into commercial products before. Their tiny size

changes their characteristics completely. If they didn't represent

something new, they wouldn't have the commercial world excited. At

present something like a goldrush mentality surrounds nanotech.

 

Friends of the Earth, Greenpeace and the International Center for

Technology Assessment on May 17 demanded of FDA " that nanoparticles be

treated as new substances; nanomaterials be subjected to nano-specific

paradigms of health and safety testing; and that nanomaterial products

be labeled to delineate all nanoparticle ingredients. " In other words,

they are asking the FDA to wake up to the consensus of respected

scientific bodies like the British Royal Society who concluded in

their 2004 report that nano particles are different from anything

humans have ever created before and that we need to take a

precautionary approach.

 

The petition to FDA says, " Engineered nanoparticles have fundamentally

different properties from their bulk material counterparts --

properties that also create unique human health and environmental

risks -- which necessitate new health and safety testing paradigms. "

And this is confirmed by scientists like Gunter Oberdorster who has

written text books on the subject and a recent review of

'nanotoxicology'. Until now, FDA (like U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration) have

remained oblivious to all nanotech health risks. Their position is

that carbon is carbon regardless of the size of its particles, zinc is

zinc, and titanium is titanium. Size does not matter, says FDA.

 

But every physicist knows that size matters a great deal. The smaller

an object is, the larger its surface is in relation to its volume.

Thus nano particles have an enormous surface to volume ratio, which

renders them biologically active. Oberdorster says, " This increased

biologic activity can be either positive and desirable (e.g.,

antioxidant activity, carrier capacity for therapeutics, penetration

of cellular barriers for drug delivery) or negative and undesirable

(e.g., toxicity, induction of oxidative stress or of cellular

dysfunction), or a mix of both. "

 

Now public interest organizations are asking the FDA to " Declare all

currently available sunscreen drug products containing engineered

nanoparticles of zinc oxide and titanium dioxide as an imminent hazard

to public health. " The petition (2.8 MB) and a related report (4

MB) by Friends of the Earth (FOE) expose the dark underbelly of the

health and beauty industry that has joined the nanotech gold rush

without much thought for the short or long term consequences to nature

or human health. But how could they? The structure of the modern

corporation doesn't allow for ethical perspectives or precautionary

action if they might significantly limit the bottom line.

 

Next time you (or your kids) want to slather up with your favorite

sunblock, remember that the active ingredient in the sunscreen --

typically zinc oxide and/or titanium dioxide -- could very well be a

nanomaterial. There are now hundreds of sunscreens, moisturizers,

cosmetics and other personal care products containing sub-microscopic

materials that we simply don't understand. And because the FDA doesn't

require labeling, consumers are left in the dark -- a vast experiment

with only one winner, and that isn't you or me.

 

We aren't talking about the same zinc oxide that you knew as a youth

on lifeguard's noses. Nanoscale engineered materials (smaller than 100

nanometers in diameter -- iron, aluminum, zinc, carbon, and many

others) are measured in billionths of a meter. A human hair is 80,000

nanometers wide. A strand of DNA is 3.5 nm across. The nanoworld is

quite a different place -- a world where particles can pass directly

from the environment into your bloodstream, tissues, cells and

organelles. The nano revolution has burst upon us for just that reason

-- nanomaterials take on new and unique properties that make them

attractive as drug delivery vehicles, chemical sponges and nano-robot

( " nanobot " ) building blocks.

 

There are three typical ways in which nanomaterials get into our

bodies -- we breath them, ingest them or absorb them through our skin.

And despite the evidence that nanomaterials cause lung, liver and

brain damage in animals, our Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is

treating nanomaterials like their standard or bulk sized counterparts

of yesteryear.

 

In March, 2006, Jennifer Sass of the Natural Resources Defense Council

(NRDC) summarized the state of regulatory affairs for nanotechnology

thus: " The Toxic Substances Control Act is the most obvious law for

regulating nanomaterials. But the law does not require manufacturers

to provide safety data before registering a chemical, instead placing

the burden on the government to demonstrate that a substance is

harmful. If the government does not follow up on potential risks with

a new product application within several months, the company can

proceed to sell its product. Other laws on the books also are

inadequate. The Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act [giving FDA regulatory

power] includes only feeble safeguards for cosmetics, which already

promise to be a major use of nanomaterials. Likewise, the poorly

enforced Occupational Safety and Health Act fails to address nano-

specific worker protections. "

 

As we reported in Rachel's #816, the British Royal Society

(approximately the equivalent of our National Academy of Sciences)

issued a report in July 2004 recommending a series of precautionary

actions based on their review of the scientific literature on the

possible health effects of nanomaterials:

 

** " The evidence we have reviewed suggests that some manufactured

nanoparticles and nanotubes are likely to be more toxic per unit mass

than particles of the same chemicals at larger size and will therefore

present a greater hazard. "

 

** " There is virtually no evidence available to allow the potential

environmental impacts of nanoparticles and nanotubes to be evaluated. "

 

** Therefore, " the release of nanoparticles to the environment [should

be] minimized until these uncertainties are reduced. "

 

** And, " until there is evidence to the contrary, factories and

research laboratories should treat manufactured nanoparticles and

nanotubes as if they were hazardous and seek to reduce them as far as

possible from waste streams. "

 

At the heart of the health and safety concerns is the tendency for

nanoparticles like fullerenes, nanotubes, and nanoparticle metal

oxides to produce free radicals -- charged atoms that are highly

reactive and which can cause oxidative stress, inflammation, and

subsequent damage to cells and tissue. A recent study by Duke

University found that fullerenes (Buckyballs) cause brain damage in

large mouth bass.

 

The FOE report says " Because of their size, nanoparticles are more

readily taken up by the human body than larger sized particles and are

able to cross biological membranes and access cells, tissues and

organs that larger sized particles normally cannot. " Once in the blood

stream, nanomaterials can affect all of the organs and tissues of the

body including the bone marrow, heart, lungs, brain, liver, spleen and

kidneys. But little is known about what dose may cause harmful effects

or how long different nanomaterials remain in various tissues.

 

It is known that nanoparticles can inhibit the growth of and kill

kidney cells. At the cellular level, unlike larger particles,

nanomaterials can pass into organelles like the mitochondria -- the

power plant of the cell -- and cell nucleus where they can cause DNA

mutation and cell death.[1 p. 7]

 

Nanoparticles of titanium dioxide and zinc oxide -- widely used in

sunscreens and cosmetics -- are photo active, " producing free radicals

and causing DNA damage to human skin cells when exposed to UV

light. " [1 p.7] Although there is conflicting data on just how much

nanoparticles can actually penetrate human skin and enter our blood,

there is no doubt that what we put on our skin will end up in our air,

food, and water. A recent report in Environmental Science &

Technology found fish throughout Europe are contaminated with UV-

filter-chemicals -- from sunscreen -- (4-methylbenzylidene camphor or

4-MBC; and octocrylene or OC) which are known hormone disruptors. What

we rub on our bodies washes into the lakes and rivers, and then gets

into the food chain.

 

Even nanotech industry professionals themselves are skeptical about

the safety of these materials. Speaking about the incorporation of

fullerenes into skin-care products, Professor Robert Curl Jr. -- who

shared the 1996 Nobel Prize in Chemistry for his co-discovery of

fullerenes -- expressed concern: " I would take the conservative path

of avoiding using such cosmetics while withholding judgment on the

actual merits or demerits of their use. "

 

And when a scientist at an international nanotoxicology meeting asked

200 of her colleagues whether they would feel comfortable using face

cream that contained fullerenes, fewer than ten indicated that they

would.[1 p.8]

 

The scientists who specialize in nano materials don't trust the stuff,

yet thousands of workers and consumers are being exposed every day in

the manufacture, transport and application of skin care and many other

products from tires to computer hard drives and skis.

 

There is very little known about current levels of workplace exposure.

The US National Science Foundation estimates that by 2015 2 million

workers worldwide will be directly employed in nanotechnology

industries. This means the total number of exposed workers will

certainly be much larger.[1 p. 10]

 

While the evidence continues to pile up that nanomaterials pose

significant health risks to consumers and workers, the federal

bureaucracy turns a blind eye concerned mostly with fostering economic

growth at all cost. Of the " $1.3 billion budget for the US National

Nanotechnology Initiative, only $38.5 million (less than 4%) was

earmarked for the study of the health, safety and environmental

impacts of nanotechnology. Conversely, the US Department of Defense

received $436 million (33.5% of the nanotechnology budget). " We are

spending more than ten times as much on nanotech warfare technology as

we are investing on basic health and safety research.

 

By their nature, corporations cannot regulate themselves -- by law

they are only allowed to do one thing: return a decent profit to

investors using every legal means available. But judging from the

chemical, nuclear and biotechnology industries, government is not up

to the task of regulating corporations to protect human health. So,

while our tax dollars are doing relatively little to bring health and

safety research into the public domain, corporations are ploughing

forward, constrained only by consumer tastes and trends. We don't want

a visible white paste on our bodies (nanomaterials help the sunscreen

disappear fast), therefore we must want nanotech.

 

Now public health advocates are calling for a " moratorium on the

commercialization of nanoproducts until the necessary safety research

has been conducted. " And they specifically call on a precautionary

approach which shifts the burden of proof onto industry to demonstrate

product safety, calls for product labeling and transparent peer-

reviewed health and safety studies that become part of the public

domain.

 

In March 2006 the EPA issued 'voluntary' reporting guidelines (you've

heard this one before) which give no incentive to industry to invest

in product safety research much less reveal what little they may

actually know about the health effects of their nano-products. Time

and time again -- remember tobacco, asbestos, and lead? -- the profit

motive will always drive corporations to release products into the

market (our air, food, water and soil) even if they know the product

is dangerous to human health and the environment.

 

As reported in Rachel's #816, the insurance industry is deeply

concerned about the environmental and health effects of these largely

untested technologies. They understand that nanomaterials could be the

next asbestos liability debacle. It would be interesting to see a full

cost accounting (see Rachel's #765) of the potential benefits and

costs not only to industry but to the public that currently shoulders

the burden of proof with their tax dollars, endangered health and

degraded environment.

 

As the pharmaceutical industry has demonstrated -- operating within a

precautionary framework -- a better safe than sorry approach can work

for investors and consumers alike. Big pharma has been hugely

succesful under a system that demands precautionary pre-market testing

-- so successful that it's now under constant attack for using its

financial influence to corrupt the regulatory system. When industry

and the current regulatory agencies tell us they fear a precautionary

approach will 'stifle innovation', they really don't have a leg to

stand on.

 

In the meantime, I'll be heading for the fantasy nano-free section of

my supermarket for some non-nano sunscreen.

 

[1] Nanomaterials, sunscreens and cosmetics: small ingredients big

risks. Friends of the Earth, Washington, D.C. May 17, 2006 available

here and at www.foe.org

 

Return to Table of Contents

 

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::\

::::::::

 

Tikkun, May 17, 2006

[Printer-friendly version]

 

HOWARD ZINN ON FIXING WHAT'S WRONG

 

By Shelly R. Fredman

 

When I arrived at Boston University in 1978, it was like showing up at

a party after all the guests had gone home. The Civil Rights movement

and the Vietnam War protests were over, and everyone around me was

studying business and honing their resumes. The Sixties had died. All

the activists were gone.

 

Except for Howard Zinn. You could sign up for Zinn's classes,

" Marxism " and " Anarchism, " and there, every Tuesday and Thursday, you

could hear the stories no one else would tell you: Columbus's arrival

on these shores from the Arawak Indian's point of view, Emma Goldman's

message to the unemployed in Union Square, black students in

Greensboro, NC, who one day sat down at the Woolworth's counter where

only whites could eat.

 

Now, some twenty years later, in the wake of Katrina, mired in Bush's

reckless reign and the ever-escalating death toll in Iraq, it seemed a

good time to revisit Zinn.

 

Best known for A People's History of the United States, Howard Zinn

has been a professor, radical historian, social activist, and

intellectual leader of the Left for forty years. In over twenty books,

he has devoted himself to connecting America's past with its present,

providing a frame for left-wing activism and politics. Praised by

academics and lay readers alike, Zinn feels more at home on the

streets than in the ivory tower.

 

Zinn's message of hope is unflinching, and he is busier than ever. He

has written a play, " Marx in Soho, " is producing a People's History of

the United States television series, and his new book, Original Zinn,

will be released in July.

 

He seems to have stashed De Leon's fountain of youth in his back

pocket. Though we are seated at a small table drinking coffee,

occasionally he still moves his large hands through the air, as he did

in class, underscoring the urgency of his words. And at the end of his

most radical sentences, a wry smile lights up his eyes, as if he's

imagining the glorious trouble we the people can, and will, make.

 

Shelly R. Fredman: I'd like to start by asking you about Michael

Lerner's new book, The Left Hand of God. In it, Lerner says that, post

9/11, a paradigm of fear has gripped our culture and been used to

manipulate the public into supporting politicians who are more

militaristic. How would you characterize the post-9/11 world?

 

Howard Zinn: Michael Lerner is certainly right about how fear has been

used since 9/11 to push the public into support of war. " Terrorism " is

used the way " communism " was used all through the Cold War, the result

being the deaths of millions and a nuclear arms race which wasted

trillions of dollars that could have been used to create a truly good

society for all.

 

SF: Lerner also claims that the parts of our cultural heritage that

embody elements of hope are dismissed as naive, with little to teach

us. You must have had your own bouts with critics who see your vision

as naive. How do you address them?

 

HZ: It's true that any talk of hope is dismissed as naive, but that's

because we tend to look at the surface of things at any given time.

And the surface almost always looks grim. The charge of naivete also

comes from a loss of historical perspective. History shows that what

is considered naive in one decade becomes reality in another.

 

How much hope was there for black people in the South in the fifties?

At the start of the Vietnam War, anyone who thought the monster war

machine could be stopped seemed naive. When I was in South Africa in

1982, and apartheid was fully entrenched, it seemed naive to think

that it would be dissolved and even more naive to think that Mandela

would become president. But in all those cases, anyone looking under

the surface would have seen currents of potential change bubbling and

growing.

 

SF: Has the Left responded adequately to the kind of fascism we see

coming from Bush's people? Street protests seem to be ineffective;

it's sometimes disheartening.

 

HZ: The responses are never adequate, until they build and build and

something changes. People very often think that there must be some

magical tactic, beyond the traditional ones -- protests,

demonstrations, vigils, civil disobedience -- but there is no magical

panacea, only persistence in continuing and escalating the usual

tactics of protest and resistance. The end of the Vietnam War did not

come because the Left suddenly did something new and dramatic, but

because all of the actions built up over time.

 

If you listen to the media, you get no sense of what's happening. I

speak to groups of people in different parts of the country. I was in

Austin, Texas recently and a thousand people showed up. I believe

people are basically decent, they just lack information.

 

SF: You have been outspoken against the war in Iraq. Despite all the

chaos we've heard may ensue, do you still believe we should get out of

Iraq now?

 

HZ: Yes, we should immediately withdraw. There will be chaos... it is

actually there already, and much of the chaos and violence has come

about because of our involvement. But that doesn't change the fact

that our occupation of Iraq is wrong.

 

What's more troubling [than a military mistake] is that this is an

administration that is impervious to pressure. If you listen to LBJ's

tapes, where he discusses the escalation of the war in Vietnam, you

can hear that he is torn....

 

Still, the good news is that more and more of us are becoming aware of

Bush's true nature. Less than fifty percent of Americans are for the

war, and forty percent are calling for [bush's] impeachment.

 

SF: Where do you see the Democrats in all this? What of their role,

their responsibility?

 

HZ: The Democratic Party is pitiful. Not only are they not

articulating a spiritual message, as Lerner says, they don't even have

a political message. The Democrats are tied to corporate wealth. And

they are incompetent when it comes to understanding how to win

elections. By the time Kerry ran, the public had actually shifted.

Fifty percent were against the war. The Democrats should have been

saying they would end the war, and make those dollars available for

healthcare.

 

SF: What about the upcoming crop of presidential candidates -- Hillary

Clinton, for instance?

 

HZ: Hillary Clinton is so opportunistic. She goes where the wind is

blowing. She doesn't say what needs to be said. And Barack Obama is

cautious. He's better than Clinton, but I'd suggest Marian Wright

Edelman as the Democratic candidate for president. She's the epitome

of what we need. A very smart black woman who deals with children,

poverty.... She's in the trenches, and she ties it in with

militarization. But she doesn't come out of government.

 

That's another problem -- the Democratic Party is a closed circle. It

may take a threatening third party to shake things up.

 

SF: Many people believe that history is a pendulum, and that we are

overdue for a swing to the Left. Lerner, for instance, views American

history as an oscillation between the voices of hope and the voices of

fear -- the fear after the stock market crash in 1929, the hope of the

New Deal, the fears of McCarthyism, the hope of the Civil Rights

movement and social change movements in the sixties. Is this a

compelling view of history?

 

HZ: Without making it chronological, like a roller coaster, with

predictable ups and downs, it's certainly true that in any period

there are voices that demand maintenance of the status quo, and other

voices demanding change. In other words, it isn't so much a period of

hope, then a period of fear, etc. But in every period there are both

tendencies, with one or another dominant and the dominant

characteristic often leads to a simplified picture of an era.

 

My differences with Lerner, though, reside in the proportion of

attention he pays to spiritual values. These are important, but

they're not the critical issue. The issue is how are people living and

dying. People are dying in Iraq and our wealth is being squandered on

war and the military budget.

 

SF: Don't you believe the Left needs to address spiritual needs to

win? How else can we galvanize the heartland, people taken in by the

religious rhetoric of Bush?

 

HZ: Yes, there are special needs and they need to be addressed. But

after the last election there was a kind of hysteria among liberal

pundits about a " failure " to deal with the moral issues. There is a

hard core for whom religion is key. They are maybe twenty-five percent

of the population. It's a mistake to try to appeal to that hard core.

 

I define the spiritual in emotional terms -- to the extent that

religion can draw on the Ten Commandments (for example, thou shalt not

kill), it is important. And I find the spiritual in the arts, because

they nourish the spirit and move people. Artists like Bob Dylan and

Joan Baez, for example, and now Eddie Vedder of Pearl Jam. We need

more of these.

 

It's not that people are turned off by the Left. The Left hasn't

reached out to people with a clear, coherent, and emotional message.

The Left often does not know how to talk to other people. Tikkun

magazine appeals to intellectuals. I've never spoken the language of

ivory tower academics. And there are other voices on the Left that

speak in understandable language. For instance, Barbara Ehrenreich's

Nickel and Dimed, in which she took menial jobs across the country and

wrote about those lives, was a bestseller. There's an emotionalism to

her message that makes contact and touches thousands. Michael Moore's

movies have been seen by all sorts of people. GI's in Iraq watched his

movie. We just have to do more along those lines.

 

SF: Many on the Left seem to identify religion with the fundamentalist

versions of it we see in the worst moments of human history. Do you

see any value in religious ideas and traditions? If I can get

personal: do you identify at all as a Jew, with the Jewish story? Is

there anything in it that's meaningful to you? Are there any thoughts

of the world beyond this one -- where, for example, you can sit with

Marx in Soho and eat Deli Haus blintzes together?

 

HZ: If I was promised that we could sit with Marx in some great Deli

Haus in the hereafter, I might believe in it! Sure, I find inspiration

in Jewish stories of hope, also in the Christian pacifism of the

Berrigans, also in Taoism and Buddhism. I identify as a Jew, but not

on religious grounds. Yes, I believe, as Pascal said, " The heart has

its reasons which reason cannot know. " There are limits to reason.

There is mystery, there is passion, there is something spiritual in

the arts -- but it is not connected to Judaism or any other religion.

 

For those who find a special inspiration in Judaism or Christianity or

Buddhism or whatever, fine. If that inspiration leads them to work for

justice, that is what matters.

 

Shelly R. Fredman's work has appeared in Best Jewish Writing, First

Harvest, the Chicago Tribune Magazine, and the Forward.

 

Return to Table of Contents

 

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::\

::::::::

 

Satya, Apr. 15, 2006

[Printer-friendly version]

 

THE ROTTEN SIDE OF ORGANICS -- INTERVIEW WITH RONNIE CUMMINS

 

The Satya Interview with Ronnie Cummins

 

Many compassionate consumers believe that buying organic food is the

only way to go. The label " organic " means refuge from pesticides,

chemicals and the damaging practices of the commercial food industry.

High-quality, mouth-watering, nutrient-rich produce -- all harvested

fresh from the farm, right? We tend to assume organic food producers

are all small farmers who combine ecologically sound farming practices

with a political agenda to promote and develop local sustainable food

systems. Unfortunately, this is no longer the case.

 

The Organic Consumers Association (OCA) formed in 1998 after organic

consumers criticized the U.S. Department of Agriculture's proposed

national regulations for organic certification of food. Today the OCA,

a nonprofit public interest organization, strives for health, justice

and sustainability, and takes on such crucial issues as food safety,

industrial agriculture, corporate accountability and fair trade.

 

The OCA has been able to rally hundreds of thousands of consumers to

pressure the USDA and organic companies to preserve strict organic

standards. Kymberlie Adams Matthews had a chance to talk with OCA

founder and National Director, Ronnie Cummins about uniting forces to

challenge industrial agriculture, corporate globalization, and

inspiring consumers to " Buy local, organic, and fair made. "

 

KAM: Can you discuss the corporate takeover of the organic food

market?

 

RC: Well the good news is there is a huge demand on the part of health

conscious and environmentally conscious consumers for organic

products. On the downside, right now there is a shortage of organic

foods and ingredients in the marketplace. And unfortunately,

corporations are noting this huge demand and are not only moving into

the organic sector, but doing it in a way which is not helping

American farmers and ranchers go organic. Instead, they are basically

degrading organic standards, bending the rules and starting to

outsource from slave labor and exploitive nations such as China for

organic foods and ingredients.

 

KAM: What kind of impact is this having on our food?

 

RC: Well the most glaring example presently is the blatant disregard

for organic standards in the dairy sector. Right now 40 percent of

organic milk is coming from Horizon Organic and Aurora Organic,

producers who are both practicing intensive confinement of farmed

animals, allowing them no access to pasture. They are also regularly

importing calves from industrial farms and simply calling them

organic. These heifers have been weaned on blood, administered

antibiotics, and fed slaughterhouse waste and GMO grains. Again, this

is not helping thousands of humane family-scale farmers make the

transition to organic. Instead they are changing the rules and

allowing industrial agriculture to call it organic.

 

And then there is the corporate takeover of organic food brands.

This is a major trend, all the way from Unilever taking over Ben and

Jerry's to General Mills taking over Cascadian Farms and Muir Glen.

These transnationals deliberately conceal the names of the parent

corporation on the label because they know those corporations have

such a terrible reputation that consumers would be unlikely to want to

buy the products. Also, for the most part, they do not list the

country of origin on the label. So organic consumers continue to buy

their products, while remaining in the dark about who produced them

and where they were produced. For example, people who buy the top-

selling soy milk Silk, don't know that Silk is actually owned by Dean

Foods, the $10 billion dairy conglomerate notorious for bottom line

business practices such as injecting their cows with bovine growth

hormone and paying the lowest prices possible to dairy farmers. They

also don't know that the soy beans in Silk are likely coming in from

China and Brazil rather than the U.S. or North America.

 

What about the organic standards in China? Are they the same as here?

There has been a lot of criticism that Chinese organic products are

not really organic. But certainly the most incontestable fact about

Chinese organics is that the workers are paid nearly nothing for their

work. It is slave labor.

 

KAM: That's madness! What can we do about this?

 

RC: We are going to have to stop companies from outsourcing the

organic foods and ingredients that they can buy here. One way to do

that is to pressure companies to put the country of origin on their

label. Congress actually passed a law three years ago -- after

receiving a lot of pressure from consumers -- requiring country of

origin labels.

 

Unfortunately, they turned around and listened to corporate

agribusiness and never allocated the money for labeling enforcement.

Then last fall in the waning days of the Congressional session, they

passed a rider that would delay the country of origin labeling law for

at least two more years.

 

How important is food safety to American consumers today?

 

Eighty percent of American consumers tell pollsters they are very

concerned about food safety issues while the majority says they are

more concerned than they were last year! It's understandable. We have

alarming levels of food poisoning -- 87 million cases a year --

leading to

thousands of deaths, hundreds of thousands of hospitalizations. And

that's only the short-term damage. Consumers are becoming more and

more aware of the long-term damage -- the chronic sickness and illness

derived from the cheap food and junk food paradigm.

 

There was a story in the London Times that reports high levels of

benzene in soda pop! Nearly every day there is a story regarding mad

cow disease, pesticide levels, and toxic chemicals; yet the federal

government wants to restrict food labels. Two-thirds of organic

consumers say food safety is the primary reason for paying a premium

price for organic foods. The natural food and organic food market is

growing enormously. Ten cents out of every grocery store dollar is now

spent by consumers on products labeled either natural or organic.

 

KAM: I'm curious, what is the difference between " natural " and

" organic " ?

 

RC: " Natural " is mainly a marketing tool. It simply means that there

are not supposed to be any artificial flavors, colors or preservatives

in the product. But a lot of consumers are still learning about food

safety and they believe that " natural " products, like organic

products, are safer than foods that don't bear that label.

 

There has been a steady dynamic in the marketplace over the past ten

years. Companies that market " natural " products are tending to move to

" made with organic ingredients " and products marketed with " made with

organic ingredients " move on to " 95 or 100 percent organic. " There is

no doubt that within 5-10 years the majority of products in grocery

stores are going to bear a label that says " natural " or " organic. " And

within 10 or 15 years most things will have an " organic " label on

them.

 

KAM: But with the way things are going, what will the standards mean

by then?

 

RC: Well, that is what we are facing right now. If we allow

corporations to take over the organic sector and degrade organic

standards, then most organic products will be coming from China and

sold at Wal-Mart. And you will not be able to trust the label. We are

going to have to get better organized than we are now, both in the

marketplace and politically and make some fundamental changes in

policies. For example, right now there are no subsidies helping

American ranchers and farmers go organic. This is ridiculous given the

huge demand. So we are going to have to stop the $20 billion annual

subsidies going to industrial agriculture and intensive confinement

farming and start subsidizing the transition to organic.

 

We also obviously need to subsidize farms being able to adopt

renewable energy practices and to develop and expand local and

regional markets. Studies indicate that 25 percent of greenhouse

gasses in the U.S. are generated by industrial agriculture and long-

distance food transportation. We need to switch over to sustainable

practices if we are going to slow down and stop the climate chaos that

is accelerating. To fund this we're also going to have to stop the

administration's insane project for world domination and begin

dismantling the military-industrial complex.

 

KAM: In terms of transportation and its effects on the environment,

what is your take on local vs. organic produce?

 

RC: The Organic Consumers Association launched a long-term campaign

last fall called Breaking the chains: Buy local, organic, and fair

made. We believe it is time to raise the bar on organic standards. We

need to recognize that the label USDA Organic is a good first step,

but it is just the beginning. We have got to start reducing food miles

and reducing the greenhouse gas pollution by creating a food system

similar to what we had 60 years ago -- local and regional production

for local and regional markets. Family sized farms need to become the

norm again and not the exception. We also to need to think hard about

things, like 80 percent of the world's grain is going to feed animals,

not people, and begin eating lower on the food chain if we are going

to survive.

 

KAM: Fair made, I like that. Will the campaign touch on labor

practices on organic farms? People think organic means humane

treatment of workers, but that is not always the case.

 

RC: Thirty years ago, the roots of the new organic movement came out

of an anti-war, pro-civil rights, pro-justice movement. As the

founders of the new wave of food coops in the late-1960s, we believed

that organic meant justice as well as health and sustainability.

Unfortunately, the federal organic standards that the USDA passed in

2002 did not incorporate the demands of groups like the Organic

Consumers Association who said that social justice had to be criteria.

So they passed a very narrow definition of " organic " that just

included production methods in terms of pesticides, synthetic

chemicals and the impact on the environment. They didn't take into

consideration the treatment of small farmers or farm workers. So it

has been left to us as consumers to exert pressure in the marketplace

to make sure that organic means justice too.

 

We have seen a strong growth the last few years in the fair trade

movement which is now a $600 million market globally. And finally the

fair trade movement and the organic movement are starting to work

together. We are involved in a long-term project with a number of

organic companies and farm organizations to create a new Fair Trade or

Fair Made label, which will be both certified fair trade and certified

organic. We think this is necessary. Until we can get the USDA and the

government to see things the way we do, we need to have our own label

and be able to point out to consumers that the USDA label doesn't

include social justice as a criteria.

 

KAM: What do you think is the main problem facing the organic movement

today?

 

RC: Part of the overall problem is that our social change and

progressive movement has been fragmented for the last 30 years.

Perhaps this fragmentation or specialization was initially beneficial

or necessary to understand and focus on all the issues and types of

oppression in our particular sectors and organize our sectors, but it

is time we start to bring it all together in a great synergy. The

movements for health, justice and sustainability must work together in

this age of Peak Oil, permanent war, and climate chaos.

 

If the organic community does not unite its forces with the anti-war

movement, with the movements for environmentalism, social justice,

animal rights, then we are not going to make any changes. As we say

increased market share for organic and fairtrade products in the age

of Armageddon and climate chaos is not going to count for very much.

 

We really have to stop thinking single issues and start thinking

movement building. For this reason, every one of the OCA's campaigns

is trying to reach out to other movements and show them that we are

willing to work in a holistic way to raise consciousness over the full

range of issues, and we are asking them to do the same.

 

For example right now I have been participating in a series of

national conference calls with the Climate Crisis Coalition. It is

very good to see that the climate crisis leaders understand that 25

percent of global greenhouse gasses are coming from industrial

agriculture and long-distance food transportation, and that we are not

going to stabilize the climate unless we convert global and U.S.

agriculture production to local and regional production. So they are

willing to help us as we lobby to change the farm bill and the yearly

agriculture appropriations.

 

KAM: It is so true. All of the movements are linked.

 

RC: It doesn't do any good to buy local, organic and fair made if you

then hop on an airplane or jump into a gas-guzzling car without

thinking . We have to take on the climate crisis issue together --

this is the number one issue in the world. If we don't stop this,

there isn't going to be any food period -- much less organic food for

the future generations. The same thing with the anti-war movement. We

have to start talking about solutions to permanent war. Not just bring

the troops home from this particular war. The reason we are in Iraq,

the reason we are probably going to start a war in Iran shortly, is

because of oil. We are going to keep having these wars until we have

energy independence -- until we convert our economy into something

that is renewable and sustainable. And we are not going to do this

with the organic community, the environmental community, the animal

rights community and the anti-war communities working on our different

issues in isolation. We have to create synergy between them all.

 

KAM: How did you get involved in the organic food movement?

 

RC: I grew up in Texas. In the 1960s I got involved in the civil

rights movement and in the anti-war movement. And part of what all the

participants in those movements understood at the time was that we had

to create one big movement to deal with all the interrelated issues.

Food and coops were a strategic part of what we called the New Left

and the counter-culture. Many consumer food cooperatives and the new

wave of the organic movement came out of the anti-war movement.

 

Frances Moore Lappe laid it out for a lot of us in Diet For a Small

Planet, " The act of putting into your mouth what the earth has grown

is perhaps your most direct interaction with the earth. " In other

words, what you do with your knife and fork has a lot to do with world

peace and justice.

 

For more information visit www.organicconsumers.org.

 

Copyright STEALTH TECHNOLOGIES INC. 1994-2006

 

Return to Table of Contents

 

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::\

::::::::

 

TomPaine.com, May 11, 2006

[Printer-friendly version]

 

WAR ON THE WEB

 

By Robert B. Reich

 

[Robert Reich is professor of public policy at the Richard and Rhoda

Goldman School of Public Policy at the University of California,

Berkeley. He was secretary of labor in the Clinton administration.]

 

This week, the House is expected to vote on something termed, in

perfect Orwellian prose, the " Communications Opportunity, Promotion

and Enhancement Act of 2006. " It will be the first real battle in the

coming War of Internet Democracy.

 

On one side are the companies that pipe the Internet into our homes

and businesses. These include telecom giants like AT & T and Verizon and

cable companies like Comcast. Call them the pipe companies.

 

On the other side are the people and businesses that send Internet

content through the pipes. Some are big outfits like , Google and

Amazon, big financial institutions like Bank of America and Citigroup

and giant media companies soon to pump lots of movies and TV shows on

to the Internet.

 

But most content providers are little guys. They're mom-and-pop

operations specializing in, say, antique egg-beaters or Brooklyn

Dodgers memorabilia. They're anarchists, kooks and zealots peddling

all sorts of crank ideas They're personal publishers and small-time

investigators. They include my son's comedy troupe -- streaming new

videos on the Internet every week. They also include gazillions of

bloggers -- including my humble little blog and maybe even yours.

 

Until now, a basic principle of the Internet has been that the pipe

companies can't discriminate among content providers. Everyone who

puts stuff up on the Internet is treated exactly the same. The net is

neutral.

 

But now the pipe companies want to charge the content providers,

depending on how fast and reliably the pipes deliver the content.

Presumably, the biggest content providers would pay the most money,

leaving the little content people in the slowest and least-reliable

parts of the pipe. (It will take you five minutes to download my

blog.)

 

The pipe companies claim unless they start charge for speed and

reliability, they won't have enough money to invest in the next

generation of networks. This is an absurd argument. The pipes are

already making lots of money off consumers who pay them for being

connected to the Internet.

 

The pipes figure they can make even more money discriminating between

big and small content providers because the big guys have deep pockets

and will pay a lot to travel first class. The small guys who pay

little or nothing will just have to settle for what's left.

 

The House bill to be voted on this week would in effect give the pipes

the green light to go ahead with their plan. Price discrimination is

as old as capitalism. Instead of charging everyone the same for the

same product or service, sellers divide things up according to grade

or quality. Buyers willing to pay the most can get the best, while

other buyers get lesser quality, according to how much they pay.

Theoretically, this is efficient. Sellers who also have something of a

monopoly (as do the Internet pipe companies) can make a killing.

 

But even if it's efficient, it's not democratic. And here's the rub.

The Internet has been the place where Davids can take on Goliaths,

where someone without resources but with brains and guts and

information can skewer the high and mighty. At a time in our nation's

history when wealth and power are becoming more and more concentrated

in fewer and fewer hands, it's been the one forum in which all voices

are equal.

 

Will the pipe companies be able to end Internet democracy? Perhaps if

enough of the small guys make enough of a fuss, Congress may listen.

But don't bet on it. This Congress is not in the habit of listening to

small guys. The best hope is that big content providers will use their

formidable lobbying clout to demand net neutrality. The financial

services sector, for example, is already spending billions on

information technology, including online banking. Why would they want

to spend billions more paying the pipe companies for the Internet

access they already have?

 

The pipe companies are busily trying to persuade big content providers

that it's in their interest to pay for faster and more reliable

Internet deliveries. Verizon's chief Washington lobbyist recently

warned the financial services industry that if it supports net

neutrality, it won't get the sophisticated data links it will need in

the future. The pipes are also quietly reassuring the big content

providers that they can pass along the fees to their customers.

 

Will the big content providers fall for it? Stay tuned for the next

episode of Internet democracy versus monopoly capitalism.

 

Copyright 2006 TomPaine.com

 

Return to Table of Contents

 

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::\

::::::::

 

KDKA (Pittsburgh, Pa.), May 15, 2006

[Printer-friendly version]

 

BIOTECH FIRM RAISES FUROR WITH RICE PLAN

 

By Paul Elias, Associated Press

 

SAN FRANCISCO -- A tiny biosciences company is developing a promising

drug to fight diarrhea, a scourge among babies in the developing

world, but it has made an astonishing number of powerful enemies

because it grows the experimental drug in rice genetically engineered

with a human gene.

 

Environmental groups, corporate food interests and thousands of

farmers across the country have succeeded in chasing Ventria

Bioscience's rice farms out of two states. And critics continue to

complain that Ventria is recklessly plowing ahead with a mostly

untested technology that threatens the safety of conventional crops

grown for food.

 

" We just want them to go away, " said Bob Papanos of the U.S. Rice

Producers Association. " This little company could cause major

problems. "

 

Ventria, with 16 employees, practices " biopharming, " the most

contentious segment of agricultural biotechnology because its

adherents essentially operate open-air drug factories by splicing

human genes into crops to produce proteins that can be turned into

medicines.

 

Ventria's rice produces two human proteins found in mother's milk,

saliva and tears, which help people hydrate and lessen the severity

and duration of diarrhea attacks, a top killer of children in

developing countries.

 

But farmers, environmentalists and others fear that such medicinal

crops will mix with conventional crops, making them unsafe to eat.

 

The company says the chance of its genetically engineered rice ending

up in the food supply is remote because the company grinds the rice

and extracts the protein before shipping. What's more, rice is " self-

pollinating, " and it's virtually impossible for genetically engineered

rice to accidentally cross breed with conventional crops.

 

" We use a contained system, " Ventria Chief Executive Scott Deeter

said.

 

Regardless, U.S. rice farmers in particular fear that important

overseas customers in lucrative, biotechnology-averse countries like

Japan will shun U.S. crops if biopharming is allowed to proliferate.

Exports account for 50 percent of the rice industry's $1.18 billion in

annual sales.

 

Japanese consumers, like those in Western Europe, are still alarmed by

past mad cow disease outbreaks mishandled by their governments, making

them deeply skeptical of any changes to their food supply, including

genetically engineered crops.

 

Rice interests in California drove Ventria's experimental work out of

the state in 2004, after Japanese customers said they wouldn't buy the

rice if Ventria were allowed to set up shop.

 

Anheuser-Busch Inc. and Riceland Foods Inc., the world's largest rice

miller, were among the corporate interests that pressured the company

to abandon plans to set up a commercial-scale farm in Missouri's rice

belt last year.

 

But Ventria was undeterred. The company, which has its headquarters in

Sacramento, finally landed near Greenville, N.C. In March it received

U.S. Department of Agriculture clearance to expand its operation there

from 70 acres to 335 acres. Ventria is hoping to get regulatory

clearance this year to market its diarrhea-fighting protein powder.

 

There has been little resistance from corporate and farming interest

in eastern North Carolina. But the company's work has raised the

hackles of environmentalists there.

 

" The issue is the growing of pharmaceutical products in food crops

grown outdoors, " said Hope Shand of the environmental nonprofit ETC

Group in Carrboro, N.C. " The chance this will contaminate

traditionally grown crops is great. This is a very risky business. "

 

Deeter points out that there aren't any commercial rice growers in

North Carolina, although the USDA did allow Ventria to grow its

controversial crop about a half-mile from a government " rice station, "

where new strains are tested. The USDA has since moved that station to

Beltsville, Md., though an agency spokeswoman said the relocation had

nothing to do with Ventria.

 

The company, meanwhile, has applied to the Food and Drug

Administration to approve the protein powder as a " medical food "

rather than a drug. That means Ventria wouldn't have to conduct long

and costly human tests. Instead, it submitted data from scientific

experts attesting to the company's powder is " generally regarded as

safe. "

 

Earlier this month, a Peruvian scientist sponsored by Ventria

presented data at the Pediatric Academics Societies meeting in San

Francisco. It showed children hospitalized in Peru with serious

diarrhea attacks recovered quicker -- 3.67 days versus 5.21 days -- if

the dehydration solution they were fed contained the powder.

 

Ventria's chief executive said he hopes to have an approval this year

and envisions a $100 million annual market in the United States.

Deeter forecasts a $500 million market overseas, especially in

developing countries where diarrhea is a top killer of children under

the age of 5. The World Health Organization reports that nearly 2

million children succumb to diarrhea each year.

 

But overcoming consumer skepticism and regulatory concerns about

feeding babies with products derived from genetic engineering is a

tall order. This is especially true in the face of continued

opposition to biopharming from the Grocery Manufacturers Association

of America, which represents food, beverage and consumer products

companies with combined U.S. sales of $460 billion.

 

Ventria hopes to add its protein powder to existing infant products.

There is no requirement to label any food products in the United

States as containing genetically engineered ingredients.

 

The company also has ambitious plans to add its product to infant

formula, a $10 billion-a-year market, even though the major food

manufacturers have so far shown little interest in using genetically

engineered ingredients. But Deeter says Ventria can win over the

manufacturers and consumers by showing the company's products are

beneficial.

 

" For children who are weaning, for instance, these two proteins have

enormous potential to help their development, "

 

Copyright 2006 The Associated Press

 

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'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

Tim Montague - tim

 

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::\

::::::::::::::::::::

 

To start your own free Email subscription to Rachel's Democracy

& Health News send a blank Email to: join-rachel.

 

In response, you will receive an Email asking you to confirm that

you want to .

 

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::\

::::::::::::::::::::

 

Environmental Research Foundation

P.O. Box 160, New Brunswick, N.J. 08903

dhn

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::\

::::::::::::::::::::

 

---