Signing off … for now …

I would like to announce that the ACLUSA blog will go into “dormant state” as I am taking a break to work on my book. There will be no new posts until we find a replacement editor. 

If any reader is interested in carrying the torch, leave a comment.

Until we meet again, in cyberspace,

Americum

1/1/09

Andrew Kimbrell of the Huffington Post on Vilsack for Sec of USDA

By Andrew Kimbrell of the Huffington Post

Posted December 23, 2008 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/andrew-kimbrell/obamas-choice-of-vilsack_b_153213.html

 

Subdued approval greeted President-elect Obama’s choice of Tom Vilsack for Secretary of Agriculture last week. This came from mainstream environmental groups, such as Sierra Club, and even organizations that have been critical in the past of the Iowa governor’s policies. Vilsack comes across in nearly all of the stories written last Tuesday and Wednesday as a solid choice, someone reliable from a farm state who understands farmers.

 

But, a day or two later the complexion of the Vilsack nomination had changed somewhat. First, the announcement was made in a slightly odd fashion, leaked out ahead of time, as though the Obama transition team were expecting some flak for their choice. In addition, Vilsack — notably — had removed himself from the running before jumping back in just prior to his selection by the president-elect.

Today, the lukewarm reception Vilsack initially received has turned into real heat as the Obama transition team finds itself in the fire over the former Governor’s appointment. President-elect Obama identified Vilsack as representative of the kind of “new leadership” Washington needs. But now, even those who initially greeted the nomination with some enthusiasm are wondering if Vilsack isn’t a signal of business as usual at the USDA, and beyond.

First of all — as Politico reports – there is the farm subsidy money that Vilsack has received over time from USDA. According to the piece, from 2000 to 2006, Vilsack and his wifecollected $42,782 in subsidies from USDA. In addition, “Vilsack is a partner at a lobbying law firm (Dorsey & Whitney) that trumpeted his advice to clients on agribusiness development and renewable energy — a job that appears to bump up against Obama’s promise to bar appointees from working on issues related to their employment for two years.” The former Governor recognizes the conflict of interests, and claims he will do everything he can to address the problem, and if he must, he will forgo the payments.

If only that was the sole reason to question the choice of Vilsack; $42K may not be enough of a figure to inspire concern. Vilsack’s positions on biotechnology and ethanol are far more troubling.

For those of us who have serious health and environmental concerns about genetically engineered (GE) crops, cloning, and industrial agriculture in general, it would be difficult to pick someone with a worse track record. Vilsack was even named “Governor of the Year” by the Biotechnology Industry Organization for his “support of the industry’s economic growth.” Small wonder. Under Governor Vilsack, the state of Iowa invested millions of dollars of taxpayer funds in dubious biotechnology start-ups, such as cow cloner Trans Ova Genetics ($9 million) and pharmaceutical corn developer, ProdiGene, Inc. ($6 million). Iowa’s investment in ProdiGene was particularly unfortunate. The company not only proved a financial failure, but in 2002, an Iowa cornfield that became contaminated with the company’s genetically engineered pharma corn had to be destroyed. One hopes Mr. Vilsack has learned from this experience. He also supported (some say instigated) a bill in 2005 that pre-empted cities and counties from regulating GE crops more strictly than the state or federal government. On biotechnology policy, Vilsack is far from the visionary we had hoped for.

Vilsack has also been a big supporter of ethanol, as is President-elect Obama. On this issue, they’re clearly in synch, but their enthusiasm is terribly misplaced. The latest science demonstrates clearly that corn-based ethanol exacerbates rather than mitigates global warming, while so-called “cellulosic” ethanol from crop waste and prairie grass (which might have value, the jury is still out) is years away from commercial use. Even some of ethanol’s strongest supporters in Congress, like Senator Tom Harkin, have come to question corn-based ethanol. President-Elect Obama and Mr. Vilsack should make elimination of federal subsidies for corn-to-ethanol — which now total several billion dollars per year — a top priority.

However, Vilsack has made some promises that are easy to rally behind. He says he supports biotech firm liability in cases of contamination episodes. He has also said that USDA should require companies to demonstrate no harm to markets for conventional and organic crops before approving new GE crops.

All this would be welcome, but so far, there is little to indicate that Mr. Vilsack would be the watchdog so promised. There is increasing disappointment in the choice, so we must watch his actions to see if he deserves the public’s trust. If he fails on any pledge, it’s up to consumers, farmers, and lawmakers to hold his feet to the fire. Ultimately, it is the President-elect’s food, farm and energy policies that will guide the USDA in the new administration. While not perfect, there is much promise in these policies.

There were high hopes that Obama would choose a Secretary who would bring real change to the beleaguered USDA. Though more progressive candidates were passed over, Tom Vilsack may not prove to be the AgriBusiness-as-Usual choice that his record would suggest. Some who know him say he is a good listener, and we should not rule out the possibility of change. A president elected on a platform of change needs to implement it nowhere more urgently than in food and farm policy. This nation needs nothing short of a New Green Deal to reverse the Bush administration’s abysmal food safety record and assault on the environment through its promotion of industrial agriculture. Although we remain hopeful with the choice of Tom Vilsack, we also have to remain very alert.

Multinational Monitor Releases Its 10 Worst Corporations of the Year

They include:

AIG

Cargill

Chevron

Constellation Energy

Chinese National Petroleum Company

Dole

GE

Imperial Sugar

Philip Morris International

Roche

Why? Follow this link for their reasons.

More Proof that the FDA Is a Tool of Big Corporations

By JULIE SCELFO of the New York Times

Published: December 23, 2008

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/24/dining/24chem.html

 

WEEKS after its own advisory board accused the Food and Drug Administration of failing to adequately consider research about the dangers of bisphenol-A, found in many plastic baby bottles, plastic food containers and metal can linings, the agency has agreed to reconsider the issue.

The F.D.A.’s draft risk assessment in August, finding the chemical safe as it is now used, stood out against a tide of recent scientific opinion. The National Toxicology Program, part of theDepartment of Health and Human Services, has said there was reason to be concerned that BPA, as the chemical is called, could harm the brain, behavior and the prostate gland in fetuses, infants and children. Canada added the chemical to its list of toxic substances this year and has said it will ban BPA from polycarbonate baby bottles.

In September, a study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association found that adults with high levels of BPA in their urine were more prone to heart and liver disease and diabetes.

More than 200 animal studies have linked ingesting minute amounts of the substance to a range of reproductive problems, brain damage, immune deficiencies, metabolic abnormalities, and behavioral oddities like hyperactivity, learning deficits and reduced maternal willingness to nurse offspring.

The F.D.A.’s position that current human exposure to BPA in food-packaging materials provides an adequate margin of safety appeared to be based on two large multigenerational studies by research groups that received funding from the American Plastics Council, according to a letter sent to the F.D.A. by Representatives John D. Dingelland Bart Stupak, Democrats of Michigan.

Although the F.D.A. had reviewed other studies, only the two multigenerational ones met its guidelines for determining safety for human consumption, said Dr. Mitchell Cheeseman, deputy director of the agency’s Office of Food Additive Safety.

“I don’t want to suggest that published studies are not valuable to F.D.A.’s safety assessment — they are,” Dr. Cheeseman said. “But they lacked details about how the study was done, they don’t include all the raw data, so independent auditing can’t be done by agency scientists, and they have a variety of protocol limitations.”

The F.D.A.’s science board subcommittee on BPA, however, after receiving comments from an independent advisory panel, determined that the F.D.A. was wrong to disregard the large body of research showing health effects even at extremely low doses. The agency’s decision to reconsider was made public earlier this month.

“This was the F.D.A. finally acknowledging that its assertion that BPA is safe may not be correct,” said Dr. Anila Jacob, a physician and senior scientist at the Environmental Working Group, a Washington-based advocacy group. “Still, we don’t think it’s enough. With millions of babies being exposed to this chemical on a daily basis, every day we continue to delay removing this chemical from baby products is another day millions of infants continue to be exposed.”

Makers of BPA say that the chemical poses no known risk to human health.

Some manufacturers have begun introducing products for infants and children that are BPA-free, but BPA-containing polycarbonate bottles are still widely available. Shannon Jenest, a spokeswoman for the consumer lifestyle division of Philips, one of the world’s largest producers of reusable baby bottles (under the Avent brand name), said that the company would rather let consumers “decide what works for their family.” Philips manufacturers Avent products with, and without, the chemical.

Although Philips has made no public announcement, the manufacturer recently notified retailers that it will no longer accept orders for polycarbonate baby bottles after Dec. 31. But the manufacturer has not pulled its polycarbonate bottles from store shelves. “If you’re not melting the bottle in the microwave,” Ms. Jenest said, “then we don’t believe there’s an issue with bottles that contain BPA.”

More than 2 billion pounds of BPA are produced each year. According to the Can Manufacturers Institute, more than 22 billion cans to be used for food and more than 100 billion cans for beer and soft drinks were produced last year. John Rost, a chemist and chair of the North American Metal Packaging Alliance, says “the vast majority” of them are lined with a resin coating containing BPA.

The Environmental Protection Agency has calculated that adults and infants can consume 50 micrograms of BPA per kilogram of body weight every day over a lifetime with little appreciable risk of harm. Yet more than 40 studies have found health effects in rodents fed as little as 0.2 micrograms per kilogram of body weight, according to Frederick S. vom Saal, a reproductive endocrinologist at the University of Missouri, Columbia, and a leading BPA researcher.

Exposure to BPA is widespread. A study by the Centers for Disease Control and Preventionfound it in the urine of nearly 93 percent of a sample population.

 

Bribery Is One Tool in the Chest of Many Corporations: Siemens AG in Perspective

By SIRI SCHUBERT and T. CHRISTIAN MILLER of the New York Times

Published: December 20, 2008

REINHARD SIEKACZEK was half asleep in bed when his doorbell rang here early one morning two years ago.

Still in his pajamas, he peeked out his bedroom window, hurried downstairs and flung open the front door. Standing before him in the cool, crisp dark were six German police officers and a prosecutor. They held a warrant for his arrest.

At that moment, Mr. Siekaczek, a stout, graying former accountant for Siemens A.G., the German engineering giant, knew that his secret life had ended.

“I know what this is about,” Mr. Siekaczek told the officers crowded around his door. “I have been expecting you.”

To understand how Siemens, one of the world’s biggest companies, last week ended up paying $1.6 billion in the largest fine for bribery in modern corporate history, it’s worth delving into Mr. Siekaczek’s unusual journey.

A former midlevel executive at Siemens, he was one of several people who arranged a torrent of payments that eventually streamed to well-placed officials around the globe, from Vietnam to Venezuela and from Italy to Israel, according to interviews with Mr. Siekaczek and court records in Germany and the United States.

What is striking about Mr. Siekaczek’s and prosecutors’ accounts of those dealings, which flowed through a web of secret bank accounts and shadowy consultants, is how entrenched corruption had become at a sprawling, sophisticated corporation that externally embraced the nostrums of a transparent global marketplace built on legitimate transactions.

Mr. Siekaczek (pronounced SEE-kah-chek) says that from 2002 to 2006 he oversaw an annual bribery budget of about $40 million to $50 million at Siemens. Company managers and sales staff used the slush fund to cozy up to corrupt government officials worldwide.

 

Read the rest of the story, and see statistics and brief video footage, at

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/21/business/worldbusiness/21siemens.html?_r=1&ref=business&pagewanted=all

 

Editor’s Note: Corporations like to tout the strength and efficiency of the “free market.” Yet markets are not free when bribes are made to guarantee the buying and selling of goods and services. The bribes become a type of subsidy for the targeted company and its executives or government officials that have oversight in the matter. This case is just one case of thousands that no doubt exist. How truly “free” are the world markets in 2008/2009? 

New Studies on GE Corn

Current threads on GE Corn

1. A study sponsored by the Austrian Ministries for Agriculture and Health found that mice fed a genetically engineered corn developed by Monsanto Company produced fewer offspring than those fed conventional corn.

Read the full story by Ken Roseboro, ed., the Organic and Non-GMO Report, December 2008 via the Organic Consumers Association http://www.organicconsumers.org/articles/article_16247.cfm

2. Italy’s National Institute of Research on Food and Nutrition recently published a report online in the Journal of Agricultural Food Chemistry documenting significant disturbances in the immune system of young and old mice that have been fed the genetically modified corn MON 810.

The study evaluated the gut and peripheral immune response to corn in mice in vulnerable conditions-either very young or old. Weaning and old mice were fed a diet containing GM MON810 or its parental control corn or a pellet diet containing a non- GM corn for 30 and 90 days. MON810 maize induced alterations in the percentage of T and B cells and of CD4+, CD8+, γδT, and αβT subpopulations of weaning and old mice fed for 30 or 90 days, respectively, at the gut and peripheral sites. An increase of serum IL-6, IL-13, IL- 12p70, and MIP-1β after MON810 feeding was also found. These changes were not detected in the mice fed the non-GM diet.

Read the full story by Ken Roseboro, ed., the Organic and Non-GMO Report, December 2008 via the Organic Consumers Association http://www.organicconsumers.org/articles/article_16248.cfm

3. A recent study found that honey bees fed on the active form of purified Cry1Ab protein, the genetically modified protein found in GM Bt corn, can be affected in the learning responses necessary to associate nectar sources with odorants.

The scientists wanted to determine if GM Bt is one of the causes for colony collapse disorder, a mysterious affliction that is killing honeybees worldwide.

In this study bees consuming artificial nectar containing 5000ppb of Cry1Ab continued to respond positively to a learned odor even in the absence of a food reward, while normal bee behavior is to become discouraged and seek more abundant food sources.

This learning response is important in bee foraging behavior and it has attracted the attention of CCD researchers since it is known to be inhibited by the insecticide imidacloprid.

The new finding is particularly interesting since it lends weight to a previous suggestion that Bt toxins may have other, non-lethal effects which become apparent only when the normal (i.e. lethal) effect is absent. If there were to be multiple modes of Bt action then many more non-target organisms would likely be at risk from GM Bt corn. Bt Researcher Angelika Hilbeck says that more research is needed that looks at the impacts of both the Bt toxin and imidaclopid on bee behavior.

Read the full story by Ken Roseboro, ed., the Organic and Non-GMO Report, December 2008 via the Organic Consumers Association http://www.organicconsumers.org/articles/article_16249.cfm

Editor’s Note: GE corn and other crops might appear promising to the mainstream but their effects on the ecology of the areas in which they are planted is still unknown, and these studies point to serious and dangerous consequences that have been reported elsewhere. Is it a coincidence that bee colonies have been collapsing as the planting of GE corn, soy, canola and cotton have been proliferating? Perhaps. Perhaps GE plants have nothing to do with bee colony collapse. Perhaps they have everything to do also. More independent studies need to be conducted and more pressure needs to be put on the biotechnology companies to release data on these subjects.

A Data Based Argument for Universal Health Care, Part 3: Profiting from Life and Death

We argued in our previous two posts, found here, that people in the United States are less healthy than Japan, the social democracies in western Europe, Cuba, and Costa Rica despite the fact that Americans spend more than twice as much, on a per capita basis, on health care. The next piece of the puzzle is a description of the profiteers of health, or lack thereof, of the American populace.

Inserted below is a chart demonstrating the top 10 corporate profiteers. Together these companies earned $32 billion in profit in 2007. It must be noted that these are only ten of the hundreds of corporations, big and small, involved in the health industry.

It goes without saying that these companies have a vested interest in maintaining the health system as it is, and therefore a universal health care system, which would eliminate many areas of profit in the industry, would be viewed as a threat. Because these companies want to maintain the current system, it must also be stated that they have a vested interest in maintaining the ill health of Americans, and, for health insurance providers, to denying them claims for payment for the health care services they need, for a claim denied is money in the bank.

Because these corporations have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo, and their own fiscal health and survival, they spend a great deal of money on lobbying Congress for favorable legislation. A report issued in 2007 indicated that the health care sector had spent $2.2 billion in lobbying since 1998 ( http://www.calnurses.org/research/pdfs/ihsp_marketbasedhealthcare_062607.pdf). One such piece of legislation was the recent Medicare prescription drug program. This one program alone increased the profit of the pharmaceutical corporations by $8 billion in the first half of 2006 (download the report  http://oversight.house.gov/documents/20060919115623-70677.pdf).

Because the U.S. Congress is a slave to this kind of lobbying from Health and other sectors (but Health is the largest), moving toward a Universal Healthcare system is not possible without first reforming the political system through a series of constitutional amendments designed at loosening the stranglehold on our political system perpetrated by corporate dollars, the topic to which we will turn in Part 4 of this series.

Organic Consumers Unite: Stand Up Against Vilsack for USDA

Despite a massive public outcry, including over 20,000 emails from the Organic Consumers Association, President-Elect Obama has chosen former Iowa Governor Tom Vilsack to be the next Secretary of Agriculture.

Sign OCA’s Petition to the US Senate Now!

While Vilsack has promoted respectable policies with respect to restraining livestock monopolies, his overall record is one of aiding and abetting Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs) or factory farms and promoting genetically engineered crops and animal cloning. Equally troubling is Vilsack’s support for unsustainable industrial ethanol production, which has already caused global corn and grain prices to skyrocket, literally taking food off the table for a billion people in the developing world.

The Organic Consumers Association is calling on organic consumers and all concerned citizens to join our call to action and block Vilsack’s confirmation as the next Secretary of Agriculture. Please help us reach our goal of 100,000 petition signatures against Vilsack’ nomination. Sign today! Your email will be sent to your Senators and the President-Elect’s office.

Click here to voice your opposition!

 

The Government of India Challenges Monsanto

By Lison Joseph and C.R. Sukumar of Live Mint/The Wall Street Journal

http://www.livemint.com/2008/10/30000949/Monsanto-battles-biopiracy-cla.html

Hyderabad: India is asking the local arm of multinational Monsanto Co. to pay a royalty for genetic information that forms the basis of a genetically modified seed sold by the firm here because it believes this information is that of a bacteria found in Andhra Pradesh.

 The Andhra Pradesh Biodiversity Board, a statutory body set up by the Union government under the Biological Diversity Act, 2002, is seeking royalty payments from Monsanto India Ltd for genetic information it alleges was “stolen” from Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) bacteria found in the soils of Mahanandi village in Kurnool district.

This bacteria strain, claims the board, was then used in developing Monsanto’s genetically modified, bollworm-resistant Bt cotton seeds sold in India.

A Monsanto executive in charge of sales of its Bt cotton seeds strongly denied the allegation. “There is absolutely no Bt research which Monsanto is doing in Andhra Pradesh. All Bt research was done in the US,” said Raj Ketkar, deputy managing director of Mahyco Monsanto Biotech Ltd, a 50:50 joint venture between Monsanto Holdings Pvt. Ltd and Maharashtra Hybrid Seeds Corp. (Mahyco), which sells Bt cotton seeds in India.

Ketkar added that “several” of the “more” than 23 Indian firms to which Mahyco Monsanto sub-licenses Bt cotton sales rights have breeding research facilities in Andhra Pradesh. “Through what is called as breeding research, these companies cross the parent US Bt cotton seed, which Monsanto developed and provided them, with local disease-resistant varieties of cotton to develop hybrid seeds, which are then sold in India,” he said.

All firms to which Mahyco Monsanto has sub-licensed sales rights for Bt cotton pay royalties to it.

Monsanto Holdings, a 100% subsidiary of US firm Monsanto Co. has a 26% stake in Mahyco. It is also present in India through Monsanto India, an India-listed entity that is 72% owned by the US firm, and 28% by public shareholders here.

Board’s chairman R. Hampaiah said Bt bacteria found in the soil of Mahanandi in Kurnool district in Andhra Pradesh has been used in developing the indigenous version of Bt cotton capable of resisting Indian bollworm strains. Dubbing Monsanto’s act “bio piracy”, he claimed the company was also using the same technology for developing pest-resistant versions of maize and tomato.

“We are seeking 1-2% of sales revenue earned from the sale of Bt cotton (seeds) as royalty and we have had discussions with the company regarding the same,” said Hampaiah, who served as research director at Pioneer Seeds Ltd, a hybrid seeds development company in Andhra Pradesh, between 1981 and 1990. This royalty payment sought by the state is linked to the sales of Bt cotton seeds in India by Monsanto and its associates, according to the board.

Hampaiah claimed that Monsanto officials met the board after coming to know of the board’s claim. “Monsanto denied stealing any genes but admitted that information regarding the genetic sequence of the Kurnool Bt was used,” he added. “All we are seeking is benefit sharing.”

According to Hampaiah, while Monsanto was not willing to consider royalty payments, it offered to build roads and contribute to other physical and social infrastructure in the Mahanandi area as part of benefit sharing, which, he said, was not adequate in the board’s assessment.

If Monsanto doesn’t comply, Hampaiah added, the board will seek legal action. Lawyers representing the board are in the process of consulting legal experts in the US where Monsanto has a patent relating to Bt cotton, he said, claiming a legal case against Monsanto could be filed in the next couple of months.

Monsanto Holdings’ wholly-owned, research and development unit Emergent Genetics India Pvt. Ltd has operations in five different locations in Andhra Pradesh including Kurnool, according to Rimmi Harindran, a Monsanto spokesperson. Harindran denied the meeting that Hampaiah claims took place, adding meetings on other issues with the board may have taken place. She added the company has also not received any official communication from the board on this issue.

While Monsanto doesn’t disclose details of the amount it earns from sales of Bt cotton seeds, financial daily BusinessLine September, quoting industry sources, that 27 million packets of Bt cotton hybrid seeds worth at lease Rs2,000 crore were sold in the current season. A 1-2% royalty on that could work out to Rs10-20 crore.

Monsanto India says on its website that there has been a 58% or 2.95 quintals per acre increase in yield when farmers use Bt cotton seeds, translating into a profit increase for farmers of Rs5,950 an acre. Besides increase in yield, there was also reduction of an average four-five pesticide sprays against bollworm translating to a saving of Rs1,137 per acre.

The genetically modified seeds have come under fire from environmental groups and consumer organizations that allege that they “contaminate” existing cotton strains and are overpriced.

This is the second time a government body here is getting into a legal tangle with Monsanto. In January 2006, the state government filed a case against a few firms including Monsanto, before the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Commission, or MRTPC, alleging that the Bt cotton seed price at Rs1,850 for a 450g packet was “abnormally high”.

After the commission, India’s apex body that looks at issues related to competition, cartelization, and pricing, ruled that May in favour of the government, Monsanto appealed in the Supreme Court, which refused to intervene in June 2006, resulting in the company having to comply with Rs750-a-packet price fixed by the state government.

Shares of Monsanto India fell 6.75%, or Rs83.25, to close at Rs1,150.10 on the Bombay Stock Exchange on a day when the bourse’s benchmark index moved up 0.40%.

  

Childhood Obesity: Advertising Is Part of the Problem

From Dr. Mercola at

http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2008/12/13/simple-change-could-reduce-obesity-in-u-s-by-20-percent.aspx

According to a new study, a ban on fast food advertisements in the United States could reduce the number of overweight children by as much as 18 percent. In addition, the study reports that eliminating the tax deductibility of television advertising would also result in a reduction of childhood obesity.

The study’s authors found that a ban on fast food television advertisements during children’s programming would reduce the number of overweight children ages 3-11 by 18 percent, and would lower the number of overweight adolescents ages 12-18 by 14 percent.

Should the U.S. pursue this path, they would be following Sweden, Norway and Finland, which are thus far the only countries to have banned commercial sponsorship of children’s programs.

Research indicates that there is an 80 percent chance an overweight adolescent will be an obese adult. Over 300,000 deaths can be attributed to obesity and weight in the United States every year.

Sources:

·               Science Daily November 19, 2008

·               The Journal of Law & Economics November, 2008

 Editor’s Note: We have examined the role of advertising on this blog before. The corporations that spend big money on advertising that attracts and influences children are well aware of the persuasive powers of what amounts to (their own) propaganda constructed to whet the appetites of children. If they were not certain of its effectiveness then they would not spend billions and billions of dollars, when taking the aggregate of all corporations at once, EACH YEAR.