The Founding Fables of Industrialised Agriculture, by Colin Tudge

http://www.independentsciencenews.org/un-sustainable-farming/the-founding-fables-of-industrialised-agriculture/

"The case for Golden Rice is pure hype. For Golden Rice is not particularly rich in carotene and in any case, rice is not, and never will be, the best way to deliver it. Carotene is one of the commonest organic molecules in nature. It is the yellow pigment that accompanies chlorophyll in all dark green leaves (the many different kinds known as “spinach” are a great source) and is clearly on show in yellow roots such as carrots and some varieties of cassava, and in fruits like papaya and mangoes that in the tropics can grow like weeds."

There is NO scientific consensus on GMO safety

http://www.earthopensource.org/index.php/news/150

Scientists release statement saying public is being misled about genetic engineering of food

Press release, Earth Open Source, Monday 21 October 2013

Contact claire.robinson@earthopensource.org / +44 (0)752 753 6923

There is no scientific consensus that genetically modified foods and crops are safe, according to a statement released today by an international group of over 85 scientists, academics and physicians.[1]

The statement comes in response to recent claims from the GM industry and some scientists and commentators that there is a “scientific consensus” that GM foods and crops are safe for human and animal health and the environment. The statement calls such claims “misleading” and states, “The claimed consensus on GMO safety does not exist.”

Commenting on the statement, one of the signatories, Professor Brian Wynne, associate director and co-principal investigator from 2002-2012 of the UK ESRC Centre for the Economic and Social Aspects of Genomics, Cesagen, Lancaster University, said: “There is no consensus amongst scientific researchers over the health or environmental safety of GM crops and foods, and it is misleading and irresponsible for anyone to claim that there is. Many salient questions remain open, while more are being discovered and reported by independent scientists in the international scientific literature. Indeed some key public interest questions revealed by such research have been left neglected for years by the huge imbalance in research funding, against thorough biosafety research and in favour of the commercial-scientific promotion of this technology.”

Another signatory, Professor C. Vyvyan Howard, a medically qualified toxicopathologist based at the University of Ulster, said: “A substantial number of studies suggest that GM crops and foods can be toxic or allergenic, and that they can have adverse impacts on beneficial and non-target organisms. It is often claimed that millions of Americans eat GM foods with no ill effects. But as the US has no GMO labelling and no epidemiological studies have been carried out, there is no way of knowing whether the rising rates of chronic diseases seen in that country have anything to do with GM food consumption or not. Therefore this claim has no scientific basis.”

- See more at: http://www.earthopensource.org/index.php/news/150#sthash.i28mEu2H.dpuf

Puerto Rico marchó contra Monsanto frente a sus instalaciones en Isabela, 12 de octubre 2013

Comment on Wash Post article by T. Haspel

The "Both Sides" approach is clearly pro-GMO

Carmelo Ruiz-Marrero

Puerto Rico Project on Biosafety

October 17 2013

What follows is a comment on this Washington Post article by Tamar Haspel:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/food/genetically-modified-foods-what-is-and-isnt-true/2013/10/15/40e4fd58-3132-11e3-8627-c5d7de0a046b_story.html

We should expect more of these "both sides" articles on the GMO debate. 

Very early on in the article she boils the debate down to right vs. left.  It is not that simple at all. Some wingnuts and Christian fundamentalists oppose GMO's for their own anti-science, conspiranoid wacko reasons (Alex Jones comes to mind).  And some in the left just love GMO's, including Cuba's Communist Party, and the progressive governments of Brazil and Uruguay, and the president of Ecuador.  Leading Democrats, including Gore, Clinton, Jimmy Carter, and good ol' Barack, are pro-GMO. To make the picture more complex, the Rockefeller Foundation, longtime funder of prog causes and groups (like Planned Parenthood), was a prime mover of the Green Revolution and is strongly pro-GMO biotech.  So no, Ms Haspel, this cannot be boiled down to right vs left.

This statement in the article is a total misrepresentation of public concerns about biotech:

"GMOs are relatively new, poorly understood by many consumers, and in violation of our sense that food should be natural. Not only are those risks uncertain and dreaded, they’re visited on people trying to feed their families healthfully and safely while the benefits accrue to farmers and biotech companies."

Benefits accrue to farmers? Tell that to Indian farmers who grew Bt cotton. http://bioseguridad.blogspot.com/search/label/Cotton

"Reasoned debate requires that we weigh risk against benefit, and GMOs undoubtedly have both. (Harvard's) Hammitt suggests looking for sources that discuss the trade-offs rather than just one or the other."

Haspel's "both sides" discourse accuses both sides in the debate of reaching foregone conclusions. But by assuring that there are tradeoffs, she shows clearly that she has foregone conclusions of her own. We saw this in the global warming debate. The "both sides" approach only served to confuse the public and resulted in the waste of precious time while the evidence of global warming became increasingly overwhelming and irrefutable.

It does not occur to Haspel that maybe one side in the debate is right.  If she openly goes pro-GMO, she loses credibility.  If she tilts against GMO's she'll probably be out of a job.  So she seems to be playing a complicated game here, a balancing act which, if done right, will set Haspel up as "Ms Credible" in the biotech debate.

She quite perceptively notes that:

"I couldn’t find the American Association for the Advancement of Science discussing GMO risks (although its journal, Science, does), and the Union of Concerned Scientists doesn’t talk about benefits."

However, this observation does not settle anything.

The article keeps getting worse after that.

Predictably, Haspel approvingly notes that the National Academies, the American Medical Association, the World Health Organization, the Royal Society and the European Commission are all favorable to GMO.

"I’m not the first journalist to notice the consensus. Science-oriented publications including Nature and Scientific American have taken a hard look at safety and also concluded there’s no evidence that GMOs are bad for us. Nathanael Johnson, who’s doing yeoman’s fact-finding work at Grist.org, concurs."

Why should we be surprised that she gives Grist's N. Johnson an honorable mention?  Johnson is, after all, doing the same "balancing act", with the same sad results, as GM Watch and PANNA's Marcia Ishii-Eitenman have pointed out. http://bioseguridad.blogspot.com/search/label/Nathanael%20Johnson

Johnson doing "yeoman’s fact-finding work"? Haspel should be doing some fact checking herself about this individual.

"There are dissenters, but I couldn’t find one that passed the test. Joining Earth Open Source and the Union of Concerned Scientists are the Non-GMO Project, the Center for Food Safety, the Institute for Responsible Technology, the American Academy of Environmental Medicine and GMWatch."

For all her "balance", Haspel is quite clearly pro-GMO.  Again, expect more of this "both sides" drivel in the not too distant future.

One last thing, take a look at her Huff Post articles, at least read the titles. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/tamar-haspel/ How can a writer with this track record legitimately claim balance and even-handedness?  Just enter Twitter and look for mentions of her. Monsanto and its allies are just delighted with her writings.  I rest my case.

Puerto Rico debe apostar a la soberanía alimentaria

Brasil Agroecológico - Plano Nacional de Agroecologia e Prod-1

Brasil Agroecológico - Plano Nacional de Agroecologia e Prod-1 from AS-PTA on Vimeo.

Vídeo produzido para o lançamento do Brasil Agroecológico - Plano Nacional de Agroecologia e Produção Orgânica que tem como principal missão articular políticas e ações de incentivo ao cultivo de alimentos orgânicos e com base agroecológica e representa um marco na agricultura brasileira.

Golden Rice and the Children of the Poor

http://www.biosafety-info.net/article.php?aid=1008
October 17, 2013

THIRD WORLD NETWORK BIOSAFETY INFORMATION SERVICE 

Dear Friends and Colleagues 

Re: Golden Rice and the Children of the Poor

The debate on Golden Rice continues to rage since it was first proposed as a solution to vitamin A deficiency more than a decade ago. Golden Rice is genetically engineered to produce betacarotene, a precursor to vitamin A. While the promise of this long-term experiment appears exciting, there remain serious questions regarding the efficacy and risks of Golden Rice, which have not been highlighted nor addressed by its creators and proponents.

We are pleased to share the article below by a TWN Associate in the Philippines, which provides a developing country perspective on the issue. Among the issues discussed are the biosafety institutional weaknesses that leave communities and the environment vulnerable while not providing adequate safeguards in the light of the power relations at play; the successes and remaining challenges of the vitamin A supplementation programme in the Philippines, which can be an efficient and sound alternative; the need to promote diverse diets, for which the country has an abundant resource of green and leafy vegetables; and the need to rethink quick techno-fixes that sidestep more deep-seated and structural concerns such as poverty, gender inequality, landlessness and limited social protection.

With best wishes, 

Third World Network

131 Jalan Macalister

10400 Penang

Malaysia

Email: twnet@po.jaring.my

Website: http://www.biosafety-info.net/ and http://www.twn.my/

To subscribe to other TWN information services: www.twnnews.net

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(Com)promised Charity: Golden Rice and the Children of the Poor

By Nina Somera (Third World Network Associate in the Philippines)

To read the article: http://www.biosafety-info.net/article.php?aid=1008

Farming and knowledge monocultures are misconceived

TO READ THE FULL ARTICLE:
http://www.scidev.net/global/agriculture/opinion/farming-and-knowledge-monocultures-are-misconceived.html

Bringing science and development together through news and analysis

• Farming and knowledge monocultures are misconceived

Food needs can be met with a new vision for agriculture and science, say Brian Wynne and Georgina Catacora-Vargas.

In mainstream policy and corporate thinking, scientific knowledge and global markets are considered key for food security. This has resulted in the industrialisation and laboratory research-led intensification ofagricultural systems, inputs and food-supply chains.

But intensified systems do not meet global food needs — they mostly suit export markets and corporate interests. The result is severe physical, but also economic, disconnection between production and consumption, or need, as well as private control of the crucial knowledge base that shapes agriculture.

This is effectively an industrial monoculture model of production — of both food and knowledge — that avoids its ecological and social costs, while suppressing more effective sustainable alternatives, and underexploits science's potential versatility.

To generate more sustainable pathways to equitable and healthy food production and access, agricultural diversification is needed, with food-supply systems decentralised and a move towards more localised networks.

This includes the strategic reorientation of agricultural research and development towards varied local conditions and needs, and towards farmers' knowledge — a global science for the public good.

The Seed Map Project

http://seedmap.org/

Seedmap.org

Although, we rarely think about seeds, 9 out of every 10 bites of food we eat today start with seeds . And they are under incredible threat. Our planet has lost 75% of its plant genetic diversity between 1900 and 2000 , and 75% of our food is derived from only 12 plant and 5 animal species . The implications of this alarming biodiversity loss are serious and far-reaching, not only for food and nutrition security, but also for climate change adaptation, livelihoods and human survival. We need to act now to save biodiversity – nature’s brilliant insurance policy against disaster. That’s why we created seedmap.org

Notes

SEEDMAP.ORG: AN ONLINE PORTAL ON SEEDS, BIODIVERSITY AND FOOD

Complete with news, resources, campaigns and an interactive online seed map, Seedmap.org is a valuable teaching & advocacy tool and reference point on seeds, biodiversity, and food.

The heart of Seedmap.org is an interactive map that lets you visit hundreds of case studies around the world where agricultural biodiversity originated, is threatened, and where people are working to safeguard it. Read more…

To download a printable poster of the 2013 Seed Map exploring where our food comes from (4 MB), click here (can be printed on paper up to 11 x 17).

ABOUT THE SEED MAP PROJECT

In 2007, the update of a 1992 teaching kit evolved into a collaboration between USC Canada and ETC Group to create the hard copy wall-sized Seed Map. The Seed Map: Food, Farmers and Climate Chaos, chronicled the planet’s plant genetic wealth, how it is threatened, what are the solutions – all laid out in a physical map. It was a runaway success. More than 15,000 copies have travelled the world, in 7 languages.

We created Seedmap.org to replace the physical Seed Map and make it even more complete, up-to-date and interactive. Read more…

To download a printable poster of the 2013 Seed Map exploring where our food comes from (4 MB), click here (can be printed on paper up to 11 x 17).

Charla sobre agroecología este domingo

(Un)Scientific American loves GMO's

http://www.i-sis.org.uk/Scientific_American_Disinformation_on_GMOs.php

Scientific American Disinformation on GMOs

America’s most trusted science magazine is spreading disinformation on behalf of a failing and desperate industry, in utter disregard of scientific integrity and the overwhelming evidence of hazards to health and the environment 
Dr Mae Wan Ho, Dr Eva Sirinathsinghji and Prof Peter Saunders

Willful ignorance

http://goodmenproject.com/ethics-values/cc-willful-ignorance/

Willful Ignorance
BY STEVE MURRAY
OCTOBER 13, 2013

You know that one friend or relative who seems impervious to facts? Especially political facts? Well, here’s why.

EXCERPTS:

I am an unabashed progressive liberal. I have several conservative friends on my Facebook page, most of which are intelligent, well-read and well-informed. Some of them I’ve known almost my whole life. I can have conversations with these friends about a variety of subjects: Philadelphia sports, movies, comics and other geek stuff, education, etc. There have, of course, been some steadily contentious subjects, going back to 2007—the Iraq War, the legacy of the Bush Administration (“enhanced interrogation,” warrantless wiretapping, Abu Ghraib, etc), the 2008 election, and gun rights (especially after Sandy Hook) just to name a few. But even then, the conversations are usually somewhat productive and respectful, and people at least tried to stick to facts.

******

If you’ve spent any time on the Internet, you’ve seen examples of this: people arguing that the Civil War wasn’t about slavery, the idea that Saddam Hussein was responsible for the 9/11 attacks, the 9/11 Truthers, the Birthers, climate change deniers, and people who actually listen to (and believe!) Alex Jones. I’m sure you have that one friend-of-a-friend or that one crazy future sister-in-law who is constantly posting links and pictures that make you simply shake your head and wonder “How can they actually believe this?” Well, the answer is pretty simple: because they want to, badly.

Grupo ETC: En el Día mundial de la alimentación: Terminator y premios a Monsanto y Syngenta

http://www.etcgroup.org/es/content/en-el-d%C3%ADa-mundial-de-la-alimentaci%C3%B3n-terminator-y-premios-monsanto-y-syngenta

Ataques directos a la soberanía y los derechos de los agricultores, resistencia de campesinos y sociedad civil

Submitted on 15 Octubre 2013

Mientras la ONU celebra el Día Mundial de la Alimentación, en Brasil, la Comisión de Justicia y Constitución tiene el compromiso de legislar sobre una iniciativa de ley que permitiría el uso de la tecnología Terminator (es decir, las semillas suicidas), lo que terminaría con la prohibición nacional de ocho años y constituiría una violación a la moratoria internacional que pende sobre la tecnología anti campesina por antonomasia. En Iowa (Estados Unidos), el 17 de octubre, científicos de Syngenta y Monsanto recibirán el Premio Mundial de la Alimentación por su “sus logros de punta en la biotecnología agrícola.”

“No podría ser más irónico. En el Día mundial de la alimentación Brasil considerará aprobar una iniciativa de ley que legalizaría las semillas Terminator. Sería un ataque flagrante a la soberanía alimentaria y los derechos de los agricultores, un ataque que tendrá impacto en todo el mundo, afirma Silvia Ribeiro, Directora para América Latina del Grupo ETC.

Cientos de organizaciones de la sociedad civil y movimientos sociales aseguran de que la opinión pública mundial ponga atención: la semana pasada expresaron su preocupación ante el plenario del Comité de Seguridad Alimentaria Mundial en Roma y ante el Convenio de Diversidad Biológica, CDB, en Montreal. (En el 2000, la ONU impuso una moratoria a las semillas Terminator mediante el CDB), y están divulgando el problema en las redes sociales planetarias, para hacerles saber a los miembros de la Comisión que discutirá la iniciativa de ley que el mundo sigue rechazando las semillas suicidas. (Puede agregar su firma aquí).

Indulto al maíz en México: Mientras, Monsanto, DuPont, Dow y Syngenta intentan lograr la comercialización de maíz transgénico en México, centro de origen y diversidad genética del maíz. Existen actualmente 14 solicitudes para siembra comercial, cuya aprobación significaría la contaminación de miles de variedades campesinas de maíz. La buena noticia es que después de años de protestas de organizaciones tanto dentro como fuera de México, el 10 de octubre un juez federal suspendió las actividades relacionadas con los permisos en trámite para el maíz transgénico hasta la celebración de un juicio en que las partes presenten sus argumentos. (Para ver antecedentes, vaya a http://www.etcgroup.org/es/content/rechazo-internacional-la-siembra-de-maíz-transgénico-en-méxico.)

“La decisión del juez es motivo de celebración, pero las compañías ya trabajan para revertirla. La suspensión temporal nos da un respiro, pero no podemos dar por terminada la lucha contra el maíz transgénico en México”, afirma Silvia Riberio.  

Arroz dorado, oportunidad dorada para la biotecnología.

Mientras el foco en América Latina está en la resistencia contra la tecnología Terminator y el maíz transgénico, los campos de arroz son los campos de batalla en Asia. La industria biotecnológica, tras una máscara humanitaria, acelera el proceso para la comercialización delArroz dorado. Se espera un alud de solicitudes para la liberación comercial del arroz transgénico diseñado para expresar beta-caroteno a principios de 2014. A pesar de las resistencia de agricultores que quieren proteger y controlar su propia semilla, de los consumidores que quieren soluciones reales a los problemas de nutrición, y a pesar de las violaciones éticas reconocidas por los investigadores, los gigantes genéticos aun piensan que el Arroz dorado puede ser el ejemplo predilecto para mostrar las bondades de la biotecnología.

Concentración sin precedentes del poder de las corporaciones:

Una investigación reciente del Grupo ETC muestra una concentración de poder sin precedentes en los agronegocios mundiales. Sólo seis empresas multinacionales (Syngenta, Bayer, BASF, Dow, Monsanto, DuPont) controlan el 60% del mercado de semillas, 76% del mercado de insumos agrícolas y 100% del de semillas transgénicas. La mayoría de esas empresas tienen patentes de tecnología Terminator.

“Monsanto y Syngenta recibirán hoy el Premio Mundial de la Alimentación. Es un absurdo que podemos leer como una estrategia desesperada de relaciones públicas para salvar a una tecnología en grandes problemas. La agricultura campesina es más productiva, mejor para el ambiente y alimenta al 70% de la población mundial usando sólo el 30% de los recursos agrícolas del planeta. Es cada vez más difícil para las compañías engañarnos con lo contrario”, afirma la Directora para Asia del Grupo ETC, Neth Daño. 

Owen Paterson, 'wickedness' and the fairy dust of science, by Andy Stirling

TO READ THE WHOLE ARTICLE:
http://www.theguardian.com/science/2013/oct/15/owen-paterson-wickedness-and-the-fairy-dust-of-science

UK Environment secretary Owen Paterson has hit out at 'wicked' opponents of genetically modified crops, but forgets science's greatest assets are scepticism and democracy.

Environment secretary Owen Paterson who has hit out at "wicked" opponents of genetically modified crops. Photograph: Dominic Lipinski/PA

Even the most rational of arguments can understandably sometimes get quite heated. But in branding critics so emotively as "wicked" and "disgusting", GM advocates like Owen Paterson relinquish any claims to reason.

Like other hysterically unqualified defences of rationality, this carries a worrying whiff of fundamentalism. If sincere, the unnoticed irony makes the pathology all the more concerning. If not sincere, there is an even worse taint of expedient political manipulation. That science is such a direct victim of this rhetoric compounds the irony.

The issues go far beyond GM. What lies at threat more broadly, are both science and democracy – and their crucial interdependencies. There is a duty for all who value these thereby expediently sundered Enlightenment traditions, to speak out clearly in their defence.

Carmelo Ruiz: The tragedy of genetically modified crops and the promise of agroecology

http://www.americasforconservation.org/index.php/conscious-latino-blog/item/251-latin-america-the-tragedy-of-genetically-modified-crops-and-the-promise-of-agroecology

Latin America: The tragedy of genetically modified crops and the promise of agroecology

• September 19, 2013
• Written by  Carmelo Ruiz-Marrero
• Genetically modified (GM) crops and foods are the subject of intense, and at times furious, debate in the United States. Most of the country’s corn and soy harvests come from GM seed varieties patented by the Monsanto biotechnology corporation, and are used mostly to make food additives, biofuels, and fodder for farm animals. The introduction of these novel products into the US food supply in the 1990’s, without any public debate, notification or hearings, environmental impact statement, or independent safety studies, is causing great concern among an increasing number of consumers.

Biotech corporations claim that their GM crops provide countless benefits for consumers, farmers, the environment and the world’s hungry, including reduced use of pesticides, high yields, and environmentally sound weed and pest management. For the future, they promise crops with increased nutritional content for the hungry in the third world- like the famous “golden” rice-, and “climate-ready” crops that will resist the extreme weather events linked to global climate change. But there are scientists, farmers, activists and citizens that dispute these claims and rosy scenarios (1), and question even whether these foods are safe at all (2), and whether the underlying scientific assumptions of the technology of genetic engineering are valid in light of the most recent developments and discoveries in the fields of genetics and genomics (3).

******

There are alternatives to the industrial mode of agriculture, with its toxic agrochemicals and GM crops. And these alternatives can be found in the young science of agroecology. This new field is simultaneously a science, an agricultural practice and a social movement, and began in Central America in the 1970’s and 80’s with the Campesino a Campesino (peasant to peasant) movement. Campesino a Campesino, which has now spread all over the world, is an innovative participatory and horizontal farmer-to-farmer learning method that owes much to liberation theology’s methodology of critical thinking and social action, and to Brazilian educator Paulo Freire’s pedagogy of the oppressed. It can be thought of as an ecology of the poor, or as a campesino ecology.

Erudita bofetada al presidente Correa, de parte de Joan Martínez Alier

PARA LEER EL ARTICULO ENTERO:
http://www.jornada.unam.mx/2013/09/08/opinion/022a1eco

Postmortem Yasuní ITT

Correa nunca ha reconocido los muchísimos casos de ecologismo popular e indígena de quienes temen perder su agua limpia, sus medios de subsistencia, su tierra. Cerca de Ecuador en Cajamarca en Perú contra la empresa Yanacocha al igual que en Cajamarca, Tolima, Colombia, contra la Anglo Gold Ashanti, como los kañaris en Lambayeque, Perú contra la minería de cobre, los wixárikas defendiendo el territorio sagrado de Wirikuta contra la mineria de plata en México, los dongria kondh en Niyamgiri en Odisha en India que acaban de derrotar en consultas populares la minería de bauxita, ¿son acaso ecologistas de barrigas llenas? Hay miles de tales casos. Quienes en Sarayaku lucharon contra empresas petroleras o en Esmeraldas las mujeres que defendieron el manglar contra las camaroneras desde 1990, ¿son barrigas llenas? Chico Mendes en Acre, Brasil, en 1988, fue asesinado, un pobre seringueiro, un sindicalista rural, defendiendo los bosques hasta su muerte. Igualmente lo fueron José Caludio Ribeiro y Maria do Espírito Santo en Pará en 2011 y tantos otros. ¿Los recuerdan en las reuniones del Foro de Sao Paulo? En América Latina en los últimos 25 años de rápida expansión minera, sojera, ganadera, petrolera en las fronteras de la extracción, ha habido cientos de ecologistas populares asesinados.

Queda ahora la esperanza de que se permite y se logre una consulta popular en la que Ecuador, el país y no el gobierno, le dé una lección al mundo diciendo no a la extracción del petróleo del ITT. Eso tal vez haga pensar a personajes prepotentes e incompetentes al estilo de Dirk Niebel, que tienen parte de responsabilidad en el fracaso de la iniciativa Yasuní ITT. Fue asqueroso ver a Noruega, con su Fondo Petrolero de cientos de miles de millones de dólares de sucio dinero, negándose a contribuir a la iniciativa ITT. A quienes en Noruega tratan ahora de excluir a las Islas Lofoten de la extracción petrolera, a quienes en el Delta del Niger han sido contaminados, asesinados por la Shell y por sus propios gobiernos e inventaron la idea de dejar el petróleo en tierra, a todos los que se han mirado en el espejo de la Iniciativa ITT contra el fracking del gas en Francia o en Neuquén, Argentina (por la Chevron), en la isla de Lanzarote al igual que los raizales de las islas de San Andrés y Providencia contra el petróleo, a quienes luchan contra el carbón en los páramos de Colombia y también en La Guajira y El César, les han quitado fuerza. Estamos tristes pero también rabiosos los que, llegando a 401 ppm de dióxido de carbono en la atmósfera, vemos que al cinismo e inoperancia de los gobiernos del Norte se añade el falso pragmatismo y anti-ecologismo de un presidente del Sur que había levantado tanta simpatía y adhesión.

Para leer artículos de Carmelo Ruiz sobre Yasuni ITT: 
http://energyandenvironmentmonitor.blogspot.com/search/label/Yasuni

Why Ecuador's president is misleading the world on Yasuni-ITT, by David Hill

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/andes-to-the-amazon/2013/oct/15/ecuador-president-misleading-yasuni

Rafael Correa has moved to abolish an historic Amazon oil plan, but don't be fooled by what he claims

The Ishpingo-Tambococha-Tiputini region of Yasuni contains more species in a hectare than all the wildlife in North America. Photograph: Alamy

Carmelo en Puerto Crítico, 11 de septiembre 2013

http://www.ustream.tv/recorded/38611983

"Acompáñenos en el programa donde conversamos con Carmelo Ruiz Marrero sobre soberanías alimentarias, agricultura ecológica, neoliberalismo y mundos posibles. Lamentablemente debido a problemas con la conexión de Skype, Miguel Rodríguez Casellas no estuvo en el programa. Gracias a Carmelo Ruiz Marrero por tan valiosa información y análisis. Esto y más en Puerto Crítico"




Video streaming by Ustream

Malala Yousafzai: still a hero!, by Bill Weinberg

TO READ THE FULL ARTICLE:
http://ww4report.com/node/12688

Malala Yousafzai is still taking abuse even amid the adulation accompanying her American tour last week. Upon her shooting one year ago, her Taliban would-be assassins claimed she had praised Obama and expressed support for "Western culture." This was quickly exposed as nonsense, as it became clear that Malala was a sympathizer of a Marxist tendency that was fighting for secularism in the mullah-dominated Swat Valley! However, some voices on the "left" continued to diss her in self-righteous terms, even engaging in lugubrious conspiracy-mongering that the whole affair had been set up as a propaganda job. So what are we to make now that Malala has spoken before the United Nations, appeared on Jon Stewart, and met with Obama in the White House? Are the cynics vindicated? Has Malala now, finally, been co-opted?

No. Malala saves herself. She used her audience with Obama not as an excuse to bask in accolades, but an opportunity to speak truth to power—by protesting the incessant US drone strikes on Pakistan. As she said in a press statement released after the meeting: "I thanked President Obama for the United States' work in supporting education in Pakistan and Afghanistan and for Syrian refugees. I also expressed my concerns that drone attacks are fueling terrorism. Innocent victims are killed in these acts, and they lead to resentment among the Pakistani people. If we refocus efforts on education it will make a big impact." (McClatchy, Oct. 11)

We do hope that after this, Malala's sanctimonious critics will learn some humility.

******
Like the heroic peasant pacifists of Colombia, who are taking a nonviolent stand in the face of paramilitary terror, Malala has faced down evil, in real life and up close. Nothing could be further from the hypocritical stance of too many Western pacifists, who, with bewildering arrogance, preach nonviolence to the oppressed of Pakistan or Syria from the comfort of New York or London.

Malala Yousafzai has clearly not been co-opted, even now, and she owes this to her life experience of real immersion in real struggle, at real sacrifice. She is a hero still.

Video: Doctorado en Agroecología

Generar alternativas a la producción agrícola para hacerla más amigable con el medio ambiente es uno de los objetivos de este doctorado que reúne profesionales de todo el mundo. Los profesores imparten sus clases aquí en Colombia y también en la Universidad de California, Berkeley. Tercero en el mundo en abrirse y primero en Latinoamérica, hace de ésta, una iniciativa que pone a la Universidad de Antioquia en los ojos del mundo.

Por un Puerto Rico agroecológico y libre de transgénicos

Ponencia ante la Cámara de Representantes de Puerto Rico, martes 24 de septiembre 2013

Para leerla entera:
http://www.alainet.org/active/67635&lang=es

Mi nombre es Carmelo Ruiz Marrero, soy autor, periodista investigativo y educador ambiental, y dirijo el Proyecto de Bioseguridad de Puerto Rico, un colectivo fundado en 2004 dedicado a educar a la ciudadanía sobre los aspectos ecológicos, sociales, políticos, económicos, éticos y de salud humana de los organismos, cultivos, productos y alimentos genéticamente alterados o transgénicos, mediante charlas, conferencias, entrevistas de prensa, comunicados y una página web.

El Proyecto de la Cámara 1284, con su propuesta de formular un plan estratégico integral para la agricultura nacional, es sin duda un gran paso hacia adelante para la agricultura, seguridad alimentaria y economía del país. Sin embargo, para que tal plan sea efectivo y beneficioso para el pueblo puertorriqueño, debe abordar la ecología como asunto central y de primerísima importancia.

Algo anda realmente mal en la agricultura. Constantemente aumenta la evidencia de que la muy celebrada agricultura industrial convencional, que en este país a menudo se le llama equivocadamente agricultura “tradicional”, no combate el hambre, no es capaz de proveer alimentos saludables y deja a su paso enormes daños ambientales evitables e inaceptables, como erosión de la biodiversidad, deforestación, destrucción de suelos, envenenamiento con pesticidas, y encima de eso es una de las principales causas del cambio climático, el cual es ciertamente la mayor amenaza que enfrenta la especie humana hoy. Según “Cocinando el Planeta”, un extenso documento conjunto de varias organizaciones europeas, incluyendo GRAIN y Veterinarios Sin Fronteras (1), la agricultura industrial es responsable de la mitad de las emisiones de gases de efecto invernadero.

******

Las megaempresas que controlan la agricultura industrial ahora nos ofrecen cultivos genéticamente alterados, o transgénicos, que supuestamente aumentan los rendimientos, reducen el uso de agrotóxicos, controlan malezas y plagas de manera ambientalmente benigna, y muchos otros beneficios para consumidores, agricultores, el ambiente y los hambrientos del mundo. Pero los alegados beneficios de estas novedosas semillas producto de la biotecnología moderna son puramente imaginarios. Al contrario, los cultivos transgénicos han exacerbado el hambre y la miseria rural, han llevado al desarrollo de supermalezas y superplagas, han empeorado los problemas ambientales causados por la agricultura moderna, y estudios científicos no financiados por la industria de biotecnología consistentemente han encontrado en los alimentos transgénicos daños a la salud de animales de laboratorio lo suficientemente serios como para exigir una moratoria a su producción. Esto nos concierne a los puertorriqueños no solamente como consumidores sino que nos concierne también porque las compañías de biotecnología agrícola, como Monsanto, Syngenta y Pioneer, tienen una gran concentración de cultivos transgénicos experimentales y de propagación de semilla en terrenos agrícolas de nuestro país.

Estos cultivos no fueron alterados genéticamente para rendir más, ni para ser más nutritivos, ni para reducir el uso de agroquímicos tóxicos. La mayoría fueron alterados para ser inmunes al herbicida Roundup, producto de la corporación Monsanto, y se les conoce como cultivos Roundup Ready. Los demás producen su propio insecticida, y se les llaman cultivos Bt. Estos cultivos, que son mayormente de soya y maíz, se utilizan para hacer, entre otras cosas, harina, almidón, aceite de cocinar, endulzadores, biocombustibles, y comida para alimentar los animales de finca que nos dan carne, lácteos y huevos.

Hasta el día de hoy no se ha demostrado que los alimentos transgénicos sean seguros (6). La agencia federal estadounidense FDA, que se supone fiscalice los alimentos y medicamentos, no realiza sus propios estudios sobre productos GM. Los estudios de los que se vale la agencia son realizados por las propias compañías que los producen, y usualmente están clasificados como información confidencial (Si son tan seguros, ¿por qué la confidencialidad?).

******


En cuanto a los supuestos beneficios para los agricultores, sepan lo siguiente: El pasado 9 de julio la National Public Radio (NPR) de Estados Unidos transmitió un reportaje sobre las superplagas que azotan los sembradíos transgénicos (11), y en mayo el Wall Street Journal publicó un artículo con el horripilante título de "Pesticides Make a Comeback: Many Corn Farmers Go Back to Using Chemicals as Mother Nature Outwits Genetically Modified Seeds" (12). Hay que señalar que NPR y el Wall Street Journal siempre habían estado inclinados a favor de los transgénicos en reportajes anteriores.

En cuanto a los problemas de malezas, las noticias tampoco son halagadoras para los cultivos transgénicos. El pasado 4 de julio el Gazette, periódico del estado de Iowa, reportó que los granjeros que siembran transgénicos están perdiendo la guerra contra las malezas debido a nuevas superhiberbas resistentes al herbicida Roundup (13).

Pero el panorama no es del todo negativo. En años recientes la conciencia crítica sobre qué comemos y cómo se producen nuestros alimentos ha crecido a pasos agigantados en Puerto Rico y en el resto del mundo. El sistema industrializado de producción agrícola ya no es vaca sagrada ni volverá a serlo jamás.

Sí existen alternativas. Sí existen otras maneras de hacer las cosas. Alrededor del mundo, activistas, agricultores, científicos, profesores, campesinos, pueblos indígenas, pescadores artesanales, pastores, cooperativistas, curadoras de semillas, amas de casa, consumidores conscientes, y gente común y corriente de todas las profesiones y caminos de la vida demuestran con su activismo, investigación rigurosa y trabajo consecuente que otra agricultura es posible. Sus múltiples propuestas se aglutinan alrededor de la joven ciencia de la agroecología, la cual ofrece innovadoras respuestas ante las crisis globales alimentaria, económica, energética y ambiental.