Aug 20, 2010

Organic Consumers Association

Millions Against monsanto

The Millions Against Monsanto Campaign
Challenging the Biotech Bullying of the Infamous Chemical Company

Top 10 Reasons to Label Genetically Engineered Food

1. A threat to life: The Convention on Biodiversity recognizes that genetic engineering is a threat to the amount and variety of life on the planet.

2. They're unhealthy: Scientists reviewing data from Monsanto's own studies "have proven that genetically engineered foods are neither sufficiently healthy or proper to be commercialized."

3. Allergens: Biotech's scattershot technique of spraying plant cells with a buckshot of foreign genes that hit chromosomes in random spots can trigger the expression of new allergens and change the character of plant proteins.

4. The dairy's different: Milk and dairy products from cows injected with genetically engineered growth hormones are different from normal milk and dairy products.

5. Birth defects: The third generation of hamsters fed genetically engineered soy suffered slower growth, a high mortality rate, and a bizarre birth defect: fur growing in their mouths. Many also lost the ability to have pups.

6. It makes a difference: Animals fed genetically engineered feed are different from animals fed conventional and organic feed.

7. Gene transfer: A single serving of genetically engineered soy canresult in horizontal gene transfer, where the bacteria in the human gut adopts the soy's genetically engineered DNA.

8. They're different: Genetically engineered foods are different from normal foods.

9. Testing: Genetically engineered foods have not been tested to determine whether they are safe for human consumption.

10. They're everywhere: Almost all non-organic processed food and animal products in the U.S. today contain ingredients that come from genetically engineered crops or from animals given genetically engineered feed, vaccines or growth hormones.

Genetically Engineered Foods Should Be Labeled!
Congress: Pass the Genetically Engineered Food Right to Know Act! Sign the Petition on Facebook

Tell Obama's FDA to Label Genetically Engineered Foods!

Ask the Candidates: Should Genetically Engineered Food Be Labeled?


Why aren't genetically engineered foods labeled?

The health and reproductive problems facing "Generation Monsanto."

How Monsanto won friends and influenced people in the U.S. government.

Aug 18, 2010

Fintan Dunne Independent Journalist Blog: Audio Interview: Percy Schmeiser

Audio Interview: Percy Schmeiser
27th May, 2009

The Man Who Beat Monsanto

Guest: Percy Schmeiser

LISTEN: Mp3 Audio -

David Vs Monsanto

Imagine that a storm blows across your garden and that now, genetically-manipulated seeds are in your crops. A multi-national corporation pay you a visit, demand that you surrender your crops - and then sue you for $200 000 for the illegal use of patented, GM seeds. In this definitive David and Goliath battle, one farmer stands up against a massive multinational, and their right to claim ownership to a living organism.

Percy Schmeiser and his wife are very brave, ethical and honorable people. They are living the change they want to see in this world. THEY ARE WHAT WE ALL SHOULD BE! HEROES FOR STANDING UP TO BULLIES!!! See this hour long video of this important story! You won't regret the time spent... Monte

Aug 17, 2010

Biochar research yields significant results - Biomass Magazine

By Anna Austin Posted August 12, 2010, at 12:18 p.m. CST Although it will not solve climate change entirely, biochar has the potential to mitigate up to a tenth of current greenhouse gas emissions, according to a new study. The extensive research paper, which has been in the works for several years, centered on the carbon sequestration capabilities of biochar was published this week in Nature Communication, and co-author James Amonette hopes it will have great influence on those in the scientific community who doubt biochar’s climate mitigation potential. Amonette, a soil scientist at the U.S. DOE’s Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, said he has wanted to conduct a solid biochar study for the past several years and finally got started in 2009 after discussions with study co-author Dominic Woolf of Swansea University in Wales. “We are extremely concerned about climate change and ways to mitigate it, and independently arrived at the conclusion that biochar is something that nobody has done a real thorough study on,” he said. “We’d done some quick calculations, but nobody knew whether the numbers would be at 90 gigatons or 1 gigaton of carbon per year.” Amonette and fellow researchers calculated that when taking into consideration all biomass resources presently available, biochar has the potential to sequester one to two gigatons of carbon per year. “We really need in the area of 15 gigatons per year carbon equivalent, so It’s not the panacea, but at the same time it’s a significant player and that was the goal of this paper, to make a solid case for biochar that the scientific community could understand and accept because a lot of people are really turned off by the hype.” The most difficult component of the study, according to Amonette, was determining the amount of biomass sustainably available. “We relied heavily on some work done earlier, but basically we had to sort out how much is already being used for various purposes, how much is being left, and how much we can take off the soil/land without soil erosion,” he said. A surprising determination of the resource analysis was that a significant amount of biomass is already spoken for in one way or another, Amonette said. “There’s not a lot of it just lying around. We were very careful , getting back to the sustainability issues, not to consider breaking natural ground and converting it to biomass plantations because that was absolutely not the right way to go; the carbon debt from doing that is very large.” Following the sustainable biomass assessment, the researchers began a comparison of the available material being used as a soil additive opposed to generating bioenergy out of it, in order to determine tradeoffs between the two. “Initially, we just came up with a single number—that on average, biochar is 20 percent more effective in mitigating climate change that bioenergy,” Amonette said. “We then did a second analysis that proved—depending on the fertility of the soil to which the biochar was applied and on the power source or type of fossil energy being offset—in some instances, bioenergy was a better option for climate mitigation. What is the better use for the biomass, however, varies greatly from one scenario to the next. “Instead of competing though, they can work together to solve this problem. Bioenergy is still a very good way to go, but it’s not going to solve the problem by itself. It has the same limitations that biochar does.” For more information about the “Sustainable Biochar to Mitigate Global Climate Change” study and other recent biochar developments, see the September 2010 issue of Biomass Magazine.

Aug 15, 2010

Organic Produce Locally Grown in Biochar with Dr. Joan Gussow, Dr. Hugh McLaughlin, and Host Barry Hollister (Part 1 - Part 4)

Tracing the History of the Organic Produce Locally Grown movement from the early Seventies with Joan Gussow who has advocated for growing closer to home for decades and has now introduced Biochar into her growing process. Making of Biochar presented by Dr. Hugh McLaughlin. 5 Video Playlist! WORTHWHILE ... Monte

New Biochar Studies | Climate Change

By Bill Hewitt
Saturday, August 14 9:42 am EST

* (potentially) store billions of tons of carbon in soil for centuries;
* dramatically reduce agricultural waste, forest debris and some municipal solid waste, thus eliminating the production of greenhouse gases that result from their decomposition;
* generate energy to both power itself and a surplus for use in surface transportation or electricity generation; and
* greatly increase the productivity of agricultural soil, thus reducing the need for expensive and polluting fertilizers.

Two studies just out substantially support the potential of these benefits. The first is Sustainable biochar to mitigate global climate change in Nature Communications. Here’s a graphic from the Nature article showing precisely how these benefits can be realized.

Overview of the sustainable biochar concept.

This is an excellent depiction of the system. The punchline on how biochar can help relieve the pressure on our dangerously overstressed climate system is “Annual net emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2), methane and nitrous oxide could be reduced by a maximum of … 12% of current anthropogenic emissions … without endangering food security, habitat or soil conservation.”

The UK’s Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) has a comprehensive complementary report that also counts the ways that biochar can assist in radically reducing greenhouse gases. This is a rigorous review of the ins and outs of biochar, and is frankly quite conservative, but one of its conclusions remains “…in principle, biochar has a high carbon abatement efficiency and there are some potentially viable options which may deserve more careful attention…”

The very good people of the International Biochar Initiative, and others, are trying now to build a groundswell of support for this enormously beneficial approach to, among other things, in the words of Michael Pollan, resolarizing our farms and our food. It’s not rocket science, folks. But perhaps that’s one of the reasons that biochar is not receiving its due: There may not be a lot of return on capital for the VC community in a manifestly low-tech system. That’s all the more reason, then, why we need to keep this in front of policy makers and show what can and should be done.