Dupont Pioneer - Running The Country

April 18, 2014July 29, 2014

We’re Not Farmers, Bob. We’re Your Customers!

It was bound to happen. After running through California, Arizona, New Mexico, and Texas we finally met a real person in Oklahoma who takes issue with our mission as we Run For a GMO Free USA.

For the sake of anonymity, I’ll refer to this person as Bob. Bob’s a farmer. As you might expect, Bob knows a lot about farming. He grows GMO corn with the help of both Roundup and 2,4-D. Roundup is the world’s number one selling herbicide.

Increasing numbers of studies now implicate Roundup in a host of nasty illnesses. Researchers have found Roundup in our air, soil, water, urine, and even in breast milk of American mothers. Sri Lanka recently banned the use of Roundup in certain agricultural regions due to Round Up’s contribution to widespread kidney disease.

2,4-D is also an herbicide. It’s half of the chemical composition of Agent Orange, of Viet Nam war fame. Everyone but Monsanto knows that Agent Orange is responsible for the horrible epidemic of birth defects in Viet Nam as well as a host of illnesses to Viet Nam War veterans and their descendants. Australia recently banned the use of 2,4-D because of the harm it causes to agricultural workers.

But I digress. As much as Bob knows about farming GMO corn, there are a few things he didn’t know. Bob did not fully know what GMO stands for. Bob did not know that Monsanto uses genes from bacteria to create Roundup Ready crops.

Bob had never heard that GM corn contaminates organic farmers’ corn. Nor did he know that Monsanto sues farmers for patent infringement after their corn has been contaminated by GM corn. And Bob had no idea—until he met David and me—that people don’t want his GM corn.

But what Bob didn’t know about GMOs may not be as dangerous as the things that he did know that ain’t so. For example, Bob believes that if farmers stopped spraying poisons and “went organic” that millions of people would die. Bob believes that GMOs are no different than what our ancestors did when they cross-bred corn. And Bob believes that GM corn provides medicine that, up until now, could only be manufactured in livestock animals. And Bob didn’t think his GM corn should be much of an issue to people because nearly all of it is fed to cows and pigs. (It’s true that nearly all GM soya is fed to livestock animals and nearly all GM corn is turned into the gasoline substitute ethanol or is fed to livestock animals.)

I don’t fault Bob for believing such poppy cock. When Monsanto sells its patented seeds and poisons, it throws in truckloads of bullshit lies as a freebie bonus. And farmers like Bob pass around those lies because they’re good people who—like most of the rest of us—want to believe that the work they do has value and that it matters.

But that doesn’t change the fact that Monsanto lies are still lies. If Bob stopped growing his GMO corn, poor people wouldn’t know or care because they can’t afford to own or drive cars or eat steaks and pork chops.

If GM corn and soy farmers stopped growing their corn and soy and stopped the grossly inefficient practice of running food through animals, and if they started growing fruits, vegetable, grains, or legumes meant for human consumption, then they would actually be growing something that would benefit poor, hungry people. They’d save water, soil, and air quality and they’d cut down on the toxic chemicals like Roundup they add to the environment and to our plates.

Our ancestors used traditional cross-breeding techniques to improve crop performance and create new strains. Scientists refer to traditional cross-breeding as vertical gene transfer—the transfer of genes from parent to child. Monsanto’s patented GM crops are not created with vertical gene transfer. They are created by taking two or more unrelated species and combining their DNA in ways that would be impossible outside of a laboratory. Scientists call this method horizontal gene transfer. Our ancestors did not combine bacteria with our food and they would likely be horrified to find out that some of their descendants are bone-headed, short-sighted, and greedy enough to do so, then pass off their patented mutations as food.

The concept of using horizontal gene transfer to create medicine sounds good at first glance and may one day have merit in a controlled setting. But scientists haven’t the faintest idea to what extent their genetically modified creations might impact the world’s ecosystems once they are released into the environment. We do know that GMOs contaminate. Period. And what right does one company have to create a product that will contaminate the crops and livelihood of organic and traditional farmers?

True, I’d rather see Bob’s GM corn fed to livestock than fed to my kids. But since all life is connected on this planet, the best solution is to eliminate poisoned food altogether. It’s no secret that we can’t poison one species without also poisoning other species, including our own. It’s also no secret that meat from factory-farmed animals contains pesticides, anti-parasitics, antibiotics, and hormones. For far too many people, the living conditions of factory farms animals remain a secret. If we treated our dogs the way we treat factory-farmed hogs, we’d go to jail for a long time and with good reason.

Bob didn’t appreciate what I had to say about GMOs. Nor would I appreciate it if I were Bob. Bob asked me the same question I might ask if I wore Bob’s boots. “Are you a farmer?” It’s a valid question . . . sort of. I told Bob that my profession would only have relevance to our discussion if all farmers agreed with Bob that GMOs are safe. They don’t. I told Bob about the Organic Seeds Growers and Trade Association and their legal battle for protection from Monsanto’s GM seeds and absurd lawsuits.

I also said that there are numerous scientists who oppose GMOs, not in spite of the science, but because of the science. Clearly then, profession does not correlate to position, unless of course you profit from GMOs. Profit, it turns out, provides the strongest correlation to a pro-GMO position. If you profit from Monsanto chemicals, seeds, lies, and money, you’re likely to believe that GMOs are safe. This is true whether you’re a Supreme Court justice, scientist, university professor, politician, or farmer. Beyond safety, if you’re growing GMOs like Bob, you probably believe that your GMOs are keeping hungry people alive, even though your GMOs are just fattening up animals—animals that will one day fatten up, poison, and hasten the demise of the people who eat them.

But still, the fact remains: My family and I are not farmers. And that’s totally okay. We are not running across the country as farmers. We’re running across the country as conscientious consumers. What that means for Bob is that we are his customers. And after running half way across the USA, we’ve learned that Bob’s customers have a consistent message for him and all the other farmers of GMOs: 100% of the people we have spoken with who know about GMOs, oppose GMOs. They don’t want them released into the environment, they don’t want them in their food supply, they don’t want to eat them, and they don’t want to feed them to their kids. If they can’t get GMOs eliminated altogether, then they unanimously agree that GMOs must be labeled. They want the GMO label, of course, so they can easily know which foods and which packages to boycott.

That information will be of no surprise to the chemical giants and junk food industry. They know that an informed public is their worst enemy. They know that over 90% of the people want GMOs labeled. They know that if GMOs are labeled, people will wake up and ask, “GMOs? What’s that? They mixed bacteria with my food? Then they saturate my food with poison? These things are banned in other countries? GMOs and their poisons are linked to a ton of health problems? That’s why I’ve got Celiac Disease? That’s why I’m gluten intolerant? That’s why I can’t get pregnant? I’m feeding Roundup to my baby every time I breast feed? Wow! I’m not buying this poison and I’m certainly not feeding it to my kids.”

Whether Bob likes GM farming or not, he needs to be aware that his customer base is awakening. He needs to know that thanks to Monsanto’s and the FDA’s lies about “substantial equivalence,” he and thousands of other farmers now find themselves in the bizarre situation of raising crops that people neither want nor need.

The day is coming—and it’s coming soon—that enough of his customers will reject any and all products contaminated with GMOs, including GMO fed livestock. It happened in Europe (and continues to happen in Europe) as customers rejected food products made with GM ingredients. And it’s happening in the USA now. With or without the government’s help, Bob’s customers are going to get GMOs labeled. Some 23 different states are currently working hard to label GMOs.

Vermont just passed the first no-strings-attached labeling bill. The national GMO label will prove to be nearly as effective as a skull and crossbones label. When enough people learn that GMOs deserve a skull and crossbones label and they stop buying GMOs in the grocery store, livestock farmers and food manufacturers will drop Bob like a genetically modified hot potato. And Bob will be left standing in his cornfield with his Roundup and his 2,4-D wondering what the heck happened.

I don’t want that to happen to Bob. Farming is no picnic. In fact, it’s a whole lot of hard work with a whole lot of risks. And When Monsanto turned farmers into Monsanto’s serfs, farming got a whole lot riskier and harder.

It would be a great thing if farmers arose in mass and revolted against the chemical companies that control our elected officials and agricultural policy. Mass revolution is unlikely, but more and more farmers are returning to conventional agriculture because they’ve learned the truth for themselves: GMOs suck! Contrary to the lies they were told, GMOs don’t increase yield, they don’t increase profit, and in the long run, they cause more problems than they solve in the form of super bugs, super weeds, environmental degradation, sterile soil, and a host of medical problems in both the livestock and animals who consume poison-saturated GMOs.

What can you do to help as a consumer? Boycott GMOs. And if you find a total boycott overwhelming, be sure to Boycott Kellogg’s and all their brands. Demand that GMOs are labeled. Protest, march, rally, campaign, contact your government representative, blog, post, share, tweet, etc. The battle will not be easy. The chemical companies and their political puppets have billions of dollars at stake. They will not roll over and play dead. And if we do—play dead, that is—our deaths may not be play at all. Many people have already died due to genetically modified, chemical-based, patented seeds and monocultures.

The USDA claims that GMOs and non-GMO crops can co-exist. Of course that’s utter nonsense. GMOs contaminate non-GMOs with GMO genes proving that GMOs and non-GMO crops cannot co-exist. Because co-existence is a lie, we either rise up and squash GMOs or we sit back and let the chemical companies modify and poison anything and everything they shoot their gene guns at.

Nothing personal, Bob, but no thank you. No more GMOs! No more poisons!

Everything personal, Monsanto, Syngenta, Dupont Pioneer and other poisoners! No more GMOs. No more bee killing. No more political puppets. No more government bribes! No more revolving doors! No more poisons! No more lies!

—

Brett Wilcox is the author of We’re Monsanto: Feeding the World, Lie After Lie. Brett and his 15-year old son, David, are currently running from coast to America coast promoting a GMO-Free USA. Brett and David blog at RunningTheCountry.com. Brett wrote this blog in various towns in Texas, Oklahoma, and Kansas. Support their run and mission at RunningTheCountry.com/donate.

May 16, 2013

Hawaiians Battle Biotechnology Chemical Giants

At 9 am on an overcast morning in paradise, hundreds of protesters gathered in traditional Hawaiian chant and prayer. Upon hearing the sound of the conch shell, known here as Pū, the protesters followed a group of women towards Monsanto’s grounds.

Young residents of Molokai, Hawaii, protest GMOs as part of a month-long series of actions against biotech chemical companies. (WNV/Imani Altemus-Williams)

“A’ole GMO,” cried the mothers as they marched alongside Monsanto’s cornfields, located only feet from their homes on Molokai, one of the smallest of Hawaii’s main islands. In a tiny, tropical corner of the Pacific that has warded off tourism and development, Monsanto’s fields are one of only a few corporate entities that separates the bare terrain of the mountains and oceans.

This spirited march was the last of a series of protests on the five Hawaiian islands that Monsanto and other biotech companies have turned into the world’s ground zero for chemical testing and food engineering. Hawaii is currently at the epicenter of the debate over genetically modified organisms, generally shortened to GMOs. Because Hawaii is geographically isolated from the broader public, it is an ideal location for conducting chemical experiments. The island chain’s climate and abundant natural resources have lured five of the world’s largest biotech chemical corporations: Monsanto, Syngenta, Dow AgroSciences, DuPont Pioneer and BASF. In the past 20 years, these chemical companies have performed over 5,000 open-field-test experiments of pesticide-resistant crops on an estimated 40,000 to 60,000 acres of Hawaiian land without any disclosure, making the place and its people a guinea pig for biotech engineering.

The presence of these corporations has propelled one of the largest movement mobilizations in Hawaii in decades. Similar to the environmental and land sovereignty protests in Canada and the continental United States, the movement is influenced by indigenous culture.

“All of the resources that our kapuna [elders] gave to us, we need to take care of now for the next generation,” said Walter Ritte, a Hawaii activist, speaking in part in the Hawaiian indigenous language.

“That is our kuleana [responsibility]. That is everybody’s kuleana.”

In Hawaiian indigenous culture, the very idea of GMOs is effectively sacrilegious.

“For Hawaii’s indigenous peoples, the concepts underlying genetic manipulation of life forms are offensive and contrary to the cultural values of aloha ‘ʻāina [love for the land],” wrote Mililani B. Strask, a native Hawaiian attorney.

Deadly practices

Monsanto has a long history of making chemicals that bring about devastation. The company participated in the Manhattan Project to help produce the atomic bomb during World War II. It developed the herbicide “Agent Orange” used by U.S. military forces during the Vietnam War, which caused an estimated half-million birth deformities. Most recently, Monsanto has driven thousands of farmers in India to take their own lives, often by drinking chemical insecticide, after the high cost of the company’s seeds forced them into unpayable debt.

A Molokai resident expresses joy as the march passes by her home, which is located across the street from Monsanto’s fields. (WNV/Imani Altemus-Williams)

The impacts of chemical testing and GMOs are immediate — and, in the long-term, could prove deadly. In Hawaii, Monsanto and other biotech corporations have sprayed over 70 different chemicals during field tests of genetically engineered crops, more chemical testing than in any other place in the world. Human studies have not been conducted on GMO foods, but animal experiments show that genetically modified foods lead to pre-cancerous cell growth, infertility, and severe damage to the kidneys, liver and large intestines. Additionally, the health risks of chemical herbicides sprayed onto GMO crops cause hormone disruption, cancer, neurological disorders and birth defects. In Hawaii, some open-field testing sites are near homes and schools. Prematurity, adult on-set diabetes and cancer rates have significantly increased in Hawaii in the last ten years. Many residents fear chemical drift is poisoning them.

Monsanto’s agricultural procedures also enable the practice of monocropping, which contributes to environmental degradation, especially on an island like Hawaii. Monocropping is an agricultural practice where one crop is repeatedly planted in the same spot, a system that strips the soil of its nutrients and drives farmers to use a herbicide called Roundup, which is linked to infertility. Farmers are also forced to use pesticides and fertilizers that cause climate change and reef damage, and that decrease the biodiversity of Hawaii.

Food sovereignty as resistance

At the first of the series of marches against GMOs, organizers planted coconut trees in Haleiwa, a community on the north shore of Oahu Island. In the movement, protesting and acting as caretakers of the land are no longer viewed as separate actions, particularly in a region where Monsanto is leasing more than 1,000 acres of prime agricultural soil.

During the march, people chanted and held signs declaring, “Aloha ‘āina: De-occupy Hawaii.”

The phrase aloha ‘āina is regularly seen and heard at anti-GMO protests. Today the words are defined as “love of the land,” but the phrase has also signified “love for the country.” Historically, it was commonly used by individuals and groups fighting for the restoration of the independent Hawaiian nation, and it is now frequently deployed at anti-GMO protests when people speak of Hawaiian sovereignty and independence.

After the protest, marchers gathered in Haleiwa Beach Park, where they performed speeches, music, spoken-word poetry and dance while sharing free locally grown food. The strategy of connecting with the land was also a feature of the subsequent protest on the Big Island, where people planted taro before the march, and also at the state capitol rally, where hundreds participated in the traditional process of pounding taro to make poi, a Polynesian staple food.

The import economy is a new reality for Hawaii, one directly tied to the imposition of modern food practices on the island. Ancient Hawaii operated within the Ahupua’a system, a communal model of distributing land and work, which allowed the islands to be entirely self-sufficient.

“Private land ownership was unknown, and public, common use of the ahupua’a resources demanded that boundaries be drawn to include sufficient land for residence and cultivation, freshwater sources, shoreline and open ocean access,” explained Carol Silva, an historian and Hawaiian language professor.

Inspired by the Ahupua’a model, the food sovereignty movement is building an organic local system that fosters the connections between communities and their food — a way of resisting GMOs while simultaneously creating alternatives.

Colonial history

The decline of the Ahupua’a system didn’t only set Hawaii on the path away from food sovereignty; it also destroyed the political independence of the now-U.S. state. And indeed, when protesters chant “aloha ‘āina” at anti-GMO marches, they are alluding to the fact that this fight isn’t only over competing visions of land use and food creation. It’s also a battle for the islands’ political sovereignty.

Historically, foreign corporate interests have repeatedly taken control of Hawaii — and have exploited and mistreated the land and its people in the process.

“It’s a systemic problem and the GMO issue just happens to be at the forefront of public debate at the moment,” said Keoni Lee of ʻŌiwi TV. “ʻĀina [land] equals that which provides. Provides for who?”

The presence of Monsanto and the other chemical corporations is eerily reminiscent of the business interests that led to the overthrow of the Hawaiian Kingdom. Throughout the 19th century, the Hawaiian Kingdom was recognized as an independent nation. That reality changed in 1893, when a group of American businessmen and sugar planters orchestrated a U.S. Marine’s armed coup d’etat of the Hawaiian Kingdom government.

Five years later, the U.S. apprehended the islands for strategic military use during the Spanish-American War despite local resistance. Even then-President Grover Cleveland called the overthrow a “substantial wrong” and vowed to restore the Hawaiian kingdom. But the economic interests overpowered the political will, and Hawaii remained a U.S. colony for the following 60 years.

The annexation of Hawaii profited five sugarcane-manufacturing companies commonly referred to as the Big Five: Alexander & Baldwin, Amfac (American Factors), Castle & Cooke, C. Brewer, and Theo H. Davies. Most of the founders of these companies were missionaries who were actively involved in lobbying for the annexation of the Hawaiian islands in 1898. After the takeover, the Big Five manipulated great political power and influence in what was then considered the “Territory of Hawaii,” gaining unparalleled control of banking, shipping and importing on the island chain. The companies only sponsored white republicans in government, creating an oligarchy that threatened the labor force if it voted against their interests. The companies’ environmental practices, meanwhile, caused air and water pollution and altered the biodiversity of the land.

The current presence of the five-biotech chemical corporations in Hawaii mirrors the political and economic colonialism of the Big Five in the early 20th century — particularly because Monsanto has become the largest employer on Molokai.

“There is no difference between the “Big Five” that actually ruled Hawaii in the past,” said Walter Ritte. “Now it’s another “Big Five,” and they’re all chemical companies. So it’s almost like this is the same thing. It’s like déjàvu.”

Rising up

At the opening of this year’s legislative session on January 16, hundreds of farmers, students and residents marched to the state capitol for a rally titled “Idle No More: We the People.” There, agricultural specialist and food sovereignty activist Vandana Shiva, who traveled from India to Hawaii for the event, addressed the crowd.

“I see Hawaii not as a place where I come and people say, ‘Monsanto is the biggest employer,’ but people say, ‘this land, its biodiversity, our cultural heritage is our biggest employer,’” she said.

As she alluded to, a major obstacle facing the anti-GMO movement is the perception that the chemical corporations provide jobs that otherwise might not exist — an economic specter that the sugarcane companies also wielded to their advantage. Anti-GMO organizers are aware of how entrenched this power is.

Women lead the anti-GMO protest on Molokai in a traditional Hawaiian chant. (WNV/Imani Altemus-Williams)

“The things that we’re standing up against are really at the core of capitalism,” proclaimed Hawaiian rights activist Andre Perez at the rally.

Given the enormity of the enemy, anti-GMO activists are attacking the issue from a variety of fronts, including organizing mass education, advocating for non-GMO food sovereignty and pushing for legislative protections. Organizers see education, in particular, as the critical element to win this battle.

“Hawaii has the cheapest form of democracy,” said Daniel Anthony, a young local activist and founder of a traditional poi business. “Here we can educate a million people, and Monsanto is out.”

Others are using art to educate the public, such as Hawaiian rapper Hood Prince, who rails against Monsanto in his song “Say No to GMO.” This movement is also educating the community through teach-ins and the free distribution of the newly released book Facing Hawaii’s Future: Essential Information about GMOs.

Hawaii has already succeeded in protecting its traditional food from genetic engineering. Similar to the way the Big Five controlled varying sectors of society, the biotech engineering companies are financially linked to the local government, schools and university. Monsanto partially funds the College of Tropical Agriculture and Human Resources at the University of Hawaii. The university and the Hawaii Agriculture Research Center began the process of genetically engineering taro in 2003 after the university patented three of its varieties. Once this information became widely known, it incited uproar of objection from the Hawaiian community. Taro holds spiritual significance in the islands’ indigenous culture, in which it is honored as the first Hawaiian ancestor in the creation story.

“It felt like we were being violated by the scientific community,” wrote Ritte inFacing Hawaii’s Future. “For the Hawaiian community, taro is not just a plant. It’s a family member. It’s our common ancestor ‘Haloa …. They weren’t satisfied with just taking our land; now they wanted to take our mana, our spirit too.”

The public outcry eventually drove the university to drop its patents.

Anti-GMO activists are hoping for further successes in stopping genetic food engineering. In the current legislative session, there are about a dozen proposed bills pushing GMO regulation, labeling and a ban on all imported GMO produce. These fights over mandating GMO labeling and regulation in Hawaii may seem like a remote issue, but what happens on these isolated islands is pivotal for land sovereignty movements across the globe.

“These five major chemical companies chose us to be their center,” said Ritte. “So whatever we do is going to impact everybody in the world.”

Source:
The struggle to reclaim paradise
Imani Altemus-Williams April 10, 2013
Waging Non-Violence: People Powered News & Analysis