* By Ken Roseboro, ed.
The Organic and Non-GMO Report, November 2009
Straight to the Source
To Subscribe to the Non-GMO Report call 1-800-854-0586 or visit http://www.non-gmoreport.com/
Agro-ecologist Don Lotter published a paper titled "The Genetic Engineering of Food and the Failure of Science" in the 2009 edition of the peer-reviewed International Journal of Sociology of Agriculture and Food.
The paper makes a damning case against genetically modified foods, saying the technology is based on obsolete science, that biotechnology companies such as Monsanto have too much influence on government regulators and "public" universities, and that university scientists are ignoring the health and environmental risks of GM crops. Lotter calls the introduction of GM foods the "largest diet experiment in history."
Lotter has a Ph.D. in agro-ecology from the University of California, Davis, and a master of professional studies in international agricultural and rural development from Cornell University. He has taught environmental science, soil science, plant science, entomology, and vegetable crop production for Santa Monica College, Imperial Valley College, and UC-Davis.
Lotter does not have a tenured position and is currently working on an agricultural project in Tanzania. He half-jokingly describes his paper as "career destroying" because he says it will be difficult to find a position at a US university due to the general recognition at most US universities that GM foods are safe and will help "feed the world."
If you thought publishing the paper would jeopardize your prospects for finding a position, why did you write the paper?
DL: I'm proud of the paper. This topic should be taught at universities. There is an enormous gap in public knowledge about this issue.
The science of genetic engineering is based on the one gene-one protein doctrine. Please describe this and why you think it is flawed.
DL: When they discovered the technology there was a simplified view that genes were in charge of the production of proteins. It is the entire basis for going forward with genetic engineering technology.
Then the Human Genome Project showed that humans have fewer genes than simple organisms, but we also have one to two million proteins. This discovery put an end to the one gene-one protein doctrine.
But by then there had been a massive investment in transgenics. The industry moved ahead with all their PR of "feeding the world" without any scientific basis for their technology. The doctrine has crumbled away, yet the industry has gone on.
In your paper you say that the process of genetically engineering foods is also deeply flawed. Can you give some examples of why that is the case?
DL: The promoter gene used in genetically engineered crops, the cauliflower mosaic virus, is a powerful promoter of inter-species gene exchange. Scientists thought it would be denatured in our digestive system, but it's not. It has been shown to promote the transfer of transgenes from GM foods to the bacteria within our digestive system, which are responsible for 80% of our immune system function; they are enormously important. This is a huge flaw, but not even the biggest in crop transgenics.
The process of splicing genes into plant genomes, transgenics, causes serious genetic damage-mutations, multiple copies of the transgenic DNA, gene silencing. The ramifications of this damage, incredibly, have never been elucidated or even explored for that matter.
Do you think the increase in food allergies we are seeing may be due to GM foods?
DL: Yes, there is evidence pointing to it. The industry is powerful enough to stop any labeling legislation. Without labeling they can't track these problems. We know that after the introduction of GM soy in Britain, there was an increase of soy allergies there.
In your paper, you write that the lack of oversight of GM foods has been a major failure of US science leadership. What makes you believe this?
DL: In the early 1980s, the biotech companies were successful in getting to oversee the regulation of GM foods. The scientific community should have stepped in, and said this is a radical technology, but it didn't.
There has also been a restructuring of the relationship between industry and universities. The Bayh-Dole Act (which gives universities intellectual property control of their inventions) made universities more dependent on industry.
Universities saw transgenics as a big money source, and scientists who objected were harassed or pushed out.
Do you think any US university would fund studies on GM food safety?
DL: No, they are not doing that. Anyone who tries to conduct research looking at GM food safety is given trouble.
Universities should have a mandate to find problems with GM foods.
We need federal money to look at non-proprietary solutions, such as organic farming systems, to the world's problems, and we should see whether proprietary approaches (i.e. GM foods) cause problems.
Unfortunately, non-proprietary solutions don't get funding.
We can show that organic farming systems promote drought resistance; the Rodale Institute did this research. But if a GM crop had been found to resist drought, there would have been major news headlines saying that it will save the world.
Is the safety of GM food considered a given at US universities?
DL: Absolutely. The debate is not there. US scientists have abdicated their responsibility on this issue. They know problems exist but they don't want to talk about them. Most scientists say we need GM foods to feed the world.
Some social scientists are saying there are problems (with GM foods).
I think undergraduate groups will bring the debate over GM foods to universities.
What type of agricultural approaches do you think will solve the world's food production challenges?
DL: The IAASTD (International Assessment of Agricultural Science and Technology for Development) report said that we can produce food using agro-ecological methods and successful green revolution methods. The report didn't include transgenics.
The report was signed by 60 countries, but the US didn't sign it.
Monday, November 30, 2009
Sunday, November 29, 2009
Scientists 'grow' meat in laboratory
The move towards artificially engineered foods has taken a step forward after scientists grew a form of meat in a laboratory for the first time.
Researchers in the Netherlands have created what was described as soggy pork and are now investigating ways to improve the muscle tissue in the hope that people will one day want to eat it.
No one has yet tasted the product, but it is believed the artificial meat could be on sale within five years.
Vegetarian groups welcomed the news, saying there was “no ethical objection” if meat was not a piece of a dead animal.
Mark Post, professor of physiology at Eindhoven University, said: “What we have at the moment is rather like wasted muscle tissue. We need to find ways of improving it by training it and stretching it, but we will get there.
“This product will be good for the environment and will reduce animal suffering. If it feels and tastes like meat, people will buy it.
“You could take the meat from one animal and create the volume of meat previously provided by a million animals.”
The scientists extracted cells from the muscle of a live pig and then put them in a broth of other animal products. The cells then multiplied and created muscle tissue. They believe that it can be turned into something like steak if they can find a way to artificially "exercise" the muscle.
The project is backed by the Dutch government and a sausage maker and comes following the creation of artificial fish fillets from goldfish muscle cells.
Meat produced in a laboratory could reduce greenhouse gas emissions associated with real animals.
Meat and dairy consumption is predicted to double by 2050 and methane from livestock is said to currently produce about 18 per cent of the world’s greenhouse gases.
It was supported by animal rights campaigners. A spokesman for Peta said: “As far as we’re concerned, if meat is no longer a piece of a dead animal there’s no ethical objection.”
However the Vegetarian Society said: “The big question is how could you guarantee you were eating artificial flesh rather than flesh from an animal that had been slaughtered.
“It would be very difficult to label and identify in a way that people would trust.”
The advent of meat grown for consumers could reduce the billions of tons of greenhouse gases emitted each year by farm animals and help meet the United Nation’s predictions that meat and dairy consumption will double by 2050.
However, the latest breakthrough is certain to cause concern amongst the anti-GM lobby.
Last week Prince Charles, a fierce opponent of GM food, warned that people were creating problems by “treating food as an easy commodity rather than a precious gift from nature”.
His comments came as the results of a survey commissioned by the Food Standards Agency revealed concerns about long-term health and environmental impacts of genetically modified products.
It showed shoppers want to be told when meat and milk from cows is genetically modified through clear labelling.
GM supporters say they are aware of risks associated with "engineered" food but believe it benefits the Third World.
Nick Britten
The Telegraph
Researchers in the Netherlands have created what was described as soggy pork and are now investigating ways to improve the muscle tissue in the hope that people will one day want to eat it.
No one has yet tasted the product, but it is believed the artificial meat could be on sale within five years.
Vegetarian groups welcomed the news, saying there was “no ethical objection” if meat was not a piece of a dead animal.
Mark Post, professor of physiology at Eindhoven University, said: “What we have at the moment is rather like wasted muscle tissue. We need to find ways of improving it by training it and stretching it, but we will get there.
“This product will be good for the environment and will reduce animal suffering. If it feels and tastes like meat, people will buy it.
“You could take the meat from one animal and create the volume of meat previously provided by a million animals.”
The scientists extracted cells from the muscle of a live pig and then put them in a broth of other animal products. The cells then multiplied and created muscle tissue. They believe that it can be turned into something like steak if they can find a way to artificially "exercise" the muscle.
The project is backed by the Dutch government and a sausage maker and comes following the creation of artificial fish fillets from goldfish muscle cells.
Meat produced in a laboratory could reduce greenhouse gas emissions associated with real animals.
Meat and dairy consumption is predicted to double by 2050 and methane from livestock is said to currently produce about 18 per cent of the world’s greenhouse gases.
It was supported by animal rights campaigners. A spokesman for Peta said: “As far as we’re concerned, if meat is no longer a piece of a dead animal there’s no ethical objection.”
However the Vegetarian Society said: “The big question is how could you guarantee you were eating artificial flesh rather than flesh from an animal that had been slaughtered.
“It would be very difficult to label and identify in a way that people would trust.”
The advent of meat grown for consumers could reduce the billions of tons of greenhouse gases emitted each year by farm animals and help meet the United Nation’s predictions that meat and dairy consumption will double by 2050.
However, the latest breakthrough is certain to cause concern amongst the anti-GM lobby.
Last week Prince Charles, a fierce opponent of GM food, warned that people were creating problems by “treating food as an easy commodity rather than a precious gift from nature”.
His comments came as the results of a survey commissioned by the Food Standards Agency revealed concerns about long-term health and environmental impacts of genetically modified products.
It showed shoppers want to be told when meat and milk from cows is genetically modified through clear labelling.
GM supporters say they are aware of risks associated with "engineered" food but believe it benefits the Third World.
Nick Britten
The Telegraph
Saturday, November 28, 2009
How To Read Food Labels-Including UPC Codes on Produce-Tell The Difference Between Organic and GMO
The ingredients on food labels are the most important items you will read on a product. Some are so small you can barely read without glasses.
Reading labels are confusing and very misleading. It’s no wonder most people don’t read the small print. Most people don't read food labels, just the large front labels, exactly what manufacturing and food industry wants you to read.
Here are just some examples of what you see on the front labels: fortified with calcium, nutritional, help reduces cholesterol, no fat, low sodium, no artificial coloring and the list goes on.
You need to understand and interpret these ingredients and nutrition information on food labels before going shopping. You need to know if the products have any added ingredients such as Food Additives.If the list of ingredients is long, the product will have no doubt food additives in the product, and you're risking your health by eating it. When you read a label and see “spices”, “no artificial ingredients”, “no preservatives”, “all natural ingredients” and “real fruit flavors” -- BEWARE!!
Statements like this DO NOT mean there are no harmful ingredients in the product. The manufacturer hopes you'll think there are no harmful ingredients, but as you will see from the following example, it's not true.
Soup example: A well-known soup company has these ingredients in their chicken noodle soup. I typed this right off the label:
Chicken Stock, cooked chicken meat, carrots, enriched egg noodles (wheat flour, egg white solids, whole egg solids, niacin, ferrous sulfate, thiamine mononitrate, riboflavin, folic acid), celery, water, contains less than 2% of the following ingredients: Modified wheat starch, salt, chicken fat, monosodium glutamate (MSG), modified food starch, sugar, soy protein concentrate, onion powder, flavoring, sodium phosphates, spice extract, dehydrated parsley, chicken flavor (contains chicken stock, chicken powder, chicken fat), dehydrated garlic, spice, beta carotene for color.
Phew!!! 3 mins later.
Here is my chicken noodle soup:
* Organic chicken breast
* Organic Carrots
* Organic Celery
* Onion
* Oregano
* Basil
* Pepper
* Sea Salt
* Whole Wheat Extra Wide Noodles
My ingredients in my soup took only 30 seconds to type and the ingredients of the can soup took over 3 mins.
This soup label has a long list of unwanted food additives, that don’t belong in your soup. Here are few explanations of some of the ingredients in this soup:
* Thiamine mononitrate (synthetic Vit. B1) – false sense of nutritional value
* MSG – flavor enhancer
* Modified food starch – a thickening agent
* Soy protein concentrate – a filler
* Sodium phosphates - buffer
Here is another example of food labels:
In this pizza, the list shows that the two biggest ingredients are wheat flour and water. For the other main ingredients, the company gives a percentage (%). The product is 7% tomato, 6% cheese, 5% ham, 5% Pepperoni, 4% Monterey Jack cheese, 3% spicy beef and 2% bacon.
Percentages can sometimes be quite hard to imagine. So here's what they look like in a picture. The long orange rectangle represents all the ingredients in the pizza (the full 100%). The colored bars on the left show you the proportion of the total pizza made up by each type of meat - ham is 5%, Pepperoni is 4%, beef is 3% and bacon is 2%.
UPC Codes on Produce
Do you know what it all means?
Have you ever notice the food labels on your produce – fruit and vegetables? Produce now carry a sticker called “price look-up codes (PLUs). This tells the clerk the price, but not only that, it can help YOU. These stickers tell you how fruits and vegetables were grown. There are more than 1,300 PLU codes currently assigned to produce. Here is what they mean:
You would have either a 4 or 5 digit codes. Below is a chart that will help you identify how produce is grown.
Organically
5 digits
Starting w/ no. 9
Conventionally
4 digits
Starting w/ no. 3 or 4
Genetically Modified
5 digits
Starting w/ no. 8
i.e. A conventionally grown banana has a PLU of 4011, an organic banana is 94011 and GM banana is 84011.
To see a database of PLU codes, go to www.plucodes.com,
The Healthy Eating Guide
Also, check out our friends at The Healthy Eating Guide for more information on how to read food labels, and also some great easy healthy recipes and other healthy eating guidelines and tips.
As you look for healthier foods, you can easily find the right products just by reading nutrition food labels. Here is a summary of reading a nutrition fact label.
* A serving size is a measured amount of food or drink, such as 2 to 3 ounces of meat or 1 cup of milk.
* Serving sizes are standardized so that nutrient levels in each serving are comparable. Consumers and dietitians may use serving sizes to determine how much of the recommended daily levels of certain substances (vitamins, minerals, fats, calories, cholesterol) a particular food represents.
* Serving sizes may vary depending on how certain foods are prepared (e.g., raw, cooked, canned).
* Serving sizes should not be confused with portion sizes or helpings of food, which are the amounts of food typically served or eaten during a meal or snack.
* Portions can vary from meal to meal or person to person. Although the terms are sometimes used interchangeably, serving sizes are usually much smaller than portion sizes.
* Most foods are sold and consumed in larger portions than is recommended by government standards. For example, the average bagel consists of two serving sizes, pasta is almost five servings and a steak may be two and a quarter servings.
Source and read more:
http://www.live-the-organic-life.com/index.html
Reading labels are confusing and very misleading. It’s no wonder most people don’t read the small print. Most people don't read food labels, just the large front labels, exactly what manufacturing and food industry wants you to read.
Here are just some examples of what you see on the front labels: fortified with calcium, nutritional, help reduces cholesterol, no fat, low sodium, no artificial coloring and the list goes on.
You need to understand and interpret these ingredients and nutrition information on food labels before going shopping. You need to know if the products have any added ingredients such as Food Additives.If the list of ingredients is long, the product will have no doubt food additives in the product, and you're risking your health by eating it. When you read a label and see “spices”, “no artificial ingredients”, “no preservatives”, “all natural ingredients” and “real fruit flavors” -- BEWARE!!
Statements like this DO NOT mean there are no harmful ingredients in the product. The manufacturer hopes you'll think there are no harmful ingredients, but as you will see from the following example, it's not true.
Soup example: A well-known soup company has these ingredients in their chicken noodle soup. I typed this right off the label:
Chicken Stock, cooked chicken meat, carrots, enriched egg noodles (wheat flour, egg white solids, whole egg solids, niacin, ferrous sulfate, thiamine mononitrate, riboflavin, folic acid), celery, water, contains less than 2% of the following ingredients: Modified wheat starch, salt, chicken fat, monosodium glutamate (MSG), modified food starch, sugar, soy protein concentrate, onion powder, flavoring, sodium phosphates, spice extract, dehydrated parsley, chicken flavor (contains chicken stock, chicken powder, chicken fat), dehydrated garlic, spice, beta carotene for color.
Phew!!! 3 mins later.
Here is my chicken noodle soup:
* Organic chicken breast
* Organic Carrots
* Organic Celery
* Onion
* Oregano
* Basil
* Pepper
* Sea Salt
* Whole Wheat Extra Wide Noodles
My ingredients in my soup took only 30 seconds to type and the ingredients of the can soup took over 3 mins.
This soup label has a long list of unwanted food additives, that don’t belong in your soup. Here are few explanations of some of the ingredients in this soup:
* Thiamine mononitrate (synthetic Vit. B1) – false sense of nutritional value
* MSG – flavor enhancer
* Modified food starch – a thickening agent
* Soy protein concentrate – a filler
* Sodium phosphates - buffer
Here is another example of food labels:
In this pizza, the list shows that the two biggest ingredients are wheat flour and water. For the other main ingredients, the company gives a percentage (%). The product is 7% tomato, 6% cheese, 5% ham, 5% Pepperoni, 4% Monterey Jack cheese, 3% spicy beef and 2% bacon.
Percentages can sometimes be quite hard to imagine. So here's what they look like in a picture. The long orange rectangle represents all the ingredients in the pizza (the full 100%). The colored bars on the left show you the proportion of the total pizza made up by each type of meat - ham is 5%, Pepperoni is 4%, beef is 3% and bacon is 2%.
UPC Codes on Produce
Do you know what it all means?
Have you ever notice the food labels on your produce – fruit and vegetables? Produce now carry a sticker called “price look-up codes (PLUs). This tells the clerk the price, but not only that, it can help YOU. These stickers tell you how fruits and vegetables were grown. There are more than 1,300 PLU codes currently assigned to produce. Here is what they mean:
You would have either a 4 or 5 digit codes. Below is a chart that will help you identify how produce is grown.
Organically
5 digits
Starting w/ no. 9
Conventionally
4 digits
Starting w/ no. 3 or 4
Genetically Modified
5 digits
Starting w/ no. 8
i.e. A conventionally grown banana has a PLU of 4011, an organic banana is 94011 and GM banana is 84011.
To see a database of PLU codes, go to www.plucodes.com,
The Healthy Eating Guide
Also, check out our friends at The Healthy Eating Guide for more information on how to read food labels, and also some great easy healthy recipes and other healthy eating guidelines and tips.
As you look for healthier foods, you can easily find the right products just by reading nutrition food labels. Here is a summary of reading a nutrition fact label.
* A serving size is a measured amount of food or drink, such as 2 to 3 ounces of meat or 1 cup of milk.
* Serving sizes are standardized so that nutrient levels in each serving are comparable. Consumers and dietitians may use serving sizes to determine how much of the recommended daily levels of certain substances (vitamins, minerals, fats, calories, cholesterol) a particular food represents.
* Serving sizes may vary depending on how certain foods are prepared (e.g., raw, cooked, canned).
* Serving sizes should not be confused with portion sizes or helpings of food, which are the amounts of food typically served or eaten during a meal or snack.
* Portions can vary from meal to meal or person to person. Although the terms are sometimes used interchangeably, serving sizes are usually much smaller than portion sizes.
* Most foods are sold and consumed in larger portions than is recommended by government standards. For example, the average bagel consists of two serving sizes, pasta is almost five servings and a steak may be two and a quarter servings.
Source and read more:
http://www.live-the-organic-life.com/index.html
Friday, November 27, 2009
Article in the Mail Online says'Healthy' School Lunchs Have as much Sugar as 10 Donuts
Interested, as I pack school lunches 5 days out of the week, I wanted to know what 'seemingly healthy' choices were duping me into thinking they were good for my kids but in reality laden with sugar. As I read the Mail's article I realized that my definition of healthy and the consumer watchdog surveyor are very different.
The five items in the snapshot include Robinson's Fruit Shoot orange juice. If a 'consumer watchdog' can't differentiate between fruit juice and fruit drink, we are all in trouble nutritionally. Second, the fruit strings, which I will assume as equivalent to our fruit rollups and not considered a fruit source in my books. In my books fruit strings or rollups are considered candy.
The third item I had to google because I didn't have a clue as to what a Munch Bunch Double Up fromage frais was. Again, the food item is not even close to a healthy choice just because the packaging says 'calcium' on it.
The writer of this article calls the Dairylea Lunchables Ham 'n' Cheese Crackers the saviour of the choices. With a chemical ingredients list as long as my arm, I don't see it as a health saviour at all.
And finally the last sample item, Kellogg's Frosties cereal bars. Kellogg's says it's a healthy choice because it's a low fat alternative to chocolate.
I think I'll stick to my definition of 'seemingly healthy.'
My snapshot lunch: 100% pure apple juice (Oasis), One organic yogurt, One container filled with cut up kiwi and strawberries, One whole wheat bagel with organic cream cheese, One container of cut up cucumbers with ranch dressing dip.
Read the article here:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-1228110/School-lunchboxes-sugar-TEN-doughnuts.html
The five items in the snapshot include Robinson's Fruit Shoot orange juice. If a 'consumer watchdog' can't differentiate between fruit juice and fruit drink, we are all in trouble nutritionally. Second, the fruit strings, which I will assume as equivalent to our fruit rollups and not considered a fruit source in my books. In my books fruit strings or rollups are considered candy.
The third item I had to google because I didn't have a clue as to what a Munch Bunch Double Up fromage frais was. Again, the food item is not even close to a healthy choice just because the packaging says 'calcium' on it.
The writer of this article calls the Dairylea Lunchables Ham 'n' Cheese Crackers the saviour of the choices. With a chemical ingredients list as long as my arm, I don't see it as a health saviour at all.
And finally the last sample item, Kellogg's Frosties cereal bars. Kellogg's says it's a healthy choice because it's a low fat alternative to chocolate.
I think I'll stick to my definition of 'seemingly healthy.'
My snapshot lunch: 100% pure apple juice (Oasis), One organic yogurt, One container filled with cut up kiwi and strawberries, One whole wheat bagel with organic cream cheese, One container of cut up cucumbers with ranch dressing dip.
Read the article here:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-1228110/School-lunchboxes-sugar-TEN-doughnuts.html
Wednesday, November 25, 2009
Center For Micro-Farming Movement
Earth regenerating and socially just mini-farming. Full or part-time from urban lots to backyards to small acreage across the world.
http://www.microecofarming.com/
Monsanto’s Harvest of Fear
Donald L. Barlett and James B. Steele, 2008-05-01 (Thursday), Vanity Fair
Monsanto already dominates America’s food chain with its genetically modified seeds. Now it has targeted milk production. Just as frightening as the corporation’s tactics–ruthless legal battles against small farmers–is its decades-long history of toxic contamination.
Gary Rinehart clearly remembers the summer day in 2002 when the stranger walked in and issued his threat. Rinehart was behind the counter of the Square Deal, his “old-time country store,” as he calls it, on the fading town square of Eagleville, Missouri, a tiny farm community 100 miles north of Kansas City.
The Square Deal is a fixture in Eagleville, a place where farmers and townspeople can go for lightbulbs, greeting cards, hunting gear, ice cream, aspirin, and dozens of other small items without having to drive to a big-box store in Bethany, the county seat, 15 miles down Interstate 35.
Everyone knows Rinehart, who was born and raised in the area and runs one of Eagleville’s few surviving businesses. The stranger came up to the counter and asked for him by name.
“Well, that’s me,” said Rinehart.
As Rinehart would recall, the man began verbally attacking him, saying he had proof that Rinehart had planted Monsanto’s genetically modified (G.M.) soybeans in violation of the company’s patent. Better come clean and settle with Monsanto, Rinehart says the man told him—or face the consequences.
Rinehart was incredulous, listening to the words as puzzled customers and employees looked on. Like many others in rural America, Rinehart knew of Monsanto’s fierce reputation for enforcing its patents and suing anyone who allegedly violated them. But Rinehart wasn’t a farmer. He wasn’t a seed dealer. He hadn’t planted any seeds or sold any seeds. He owned a small—a really small—country store in a town of 350 people. He was angry that somebody could just barge into the store and embarrass him in front of everyone. “It made me and my business look bad,” he says. Rinehart says he told the intruder, “You got the wrong guy.”
When the stranger persisted, Rinehart showed him the door. On the way out the man kept making threats. Rinehart says he can’t remember the exact words, but they were to the effect of: “Monsanto is big. You can’t win. We will get you. You will pay.”
Read More:
http://www.argumentations.com/Argumentations/StoryDetail_8711.aspx
Monsanto already dominates America’s food chain with its genetically modified seeds. Now it has targeted milk production. Just as frightening as the corporation’s tactics–ruthless legal battles against small farmers–is its decades-long history of toxic contamination.
Gary Rinehart clearly remembers the summer day in 2002 when the stranger walked in and issued his threat. Rinehart was behind the counter of the Square Deal, his “old-time country store,” as he calls it, on the fading town square of Eagleville, Missouri, a tiny farm community 100 miles north of Kansas City.
The Square Deal is a fixture in Eagleville, a place where farmers and townspeople can go for lightbulbs, greeting cards, hunting gear, ice cream, aspirin, and dozens of other small items without having to drive to a big-box store in Bethany, the county seat, 15 miles down Interstate 35.
Everyone knows Rinehart, who was born and raised in the area and runs one of Eagleville’s few surviving businesses. The stranger came up to the counter and asked for him by name.
“Well, that’s me,” said Rinehart.
As Rinehart would recall, the man began verbally attacking him, saying he had proof that Rinehart had planted Monsanto’s genetically modified (G.M.) soybeans in violation of the company’s patent. Better come clean and settle with Monsanto, Rinehart says the man told him—or face the consequences.
Rinehart was incredulous, listening to the words as puzzled customers and employees looked on. Like many others in rural America, Rinehart knew of Monsanto’s fierce reputation for enforcing its patents and suing anyone who allegedly violated them. But Rinehart wasn’t a farmer. He wasn’t a seed dealer. He hadn’t planted any seeds or sold any seeds. He owned a small—a really small—country store in a town of 350 people. He was angry that somebody could just barge into the store and embarrass him in front of everyone. “It made me and my business look bad,” he says. Rinehart says he told the intruder, “You got the wrong guy.”
When the stranger persisted, Rinehart showed him the door. On the way out the man kept making threats. Rinehart says he can’t remember the exact words, but they were to the effect of: “Monsanto is big. You can’t win. We will get you. You will pay.”
Read More:
http://www.argumentations.com/Argumentations/StoryDetail_8711.aspx
Tuesday, November 24, 2009
Serious Eats Original Video: Save the Honeybees
As most serious eaters know, the folks at Häagen-Dazs are putting their money where their spoons are this year with a dedicated marketing effort aimed at increasing awareness of Colony Collapse Disorder, the mysterious condition that has caused a dramatic increase in honeybee colony losses. Häagen-Dazs is even donating a portion of the proceeds from the sale of its new vanilla honeybee flavor ice cream to fund research to find out what exactly causes CCD.
As part of this extremely worthwhile endeavor Häagen-Dazs funded the first-ever Serious Eats-produced documentary about Colony Collapse Disorder, which I hope every serious eater will watch. For our little buzz-ementary we spent the day at Blue Hill at Stone Barns in Westchester County, New York, where bees, farmers, and cooks work together to produce lots of seriously delicious food. So check out our Honeybee doc and start buzzing about Colony Collapse Disorder.
http://www.seriouseats.com/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
