Agriculture
Chair: Blanche Lincoln (D-AR)
- Max Baucus (D-MT)
- Michael Bennet (D-CO)
- Sherrod Brown (D-OH)
- Bob Casey (D-PA)
- Kent Conrad (D-ND)
- Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY)
- Tom Harkin (D-IA)
- Amy Klobuchar (D-MN)
- Pat Leahy (D-VT)
- Ben Nelson (D-NE)
- Debbie Stabenow (D-MI)
- Saxby Chambliss (R-GA)
- Thad Cochran (R-MS)
- John Cornyn (R-TX)
- Chuck Grassley (R-IA)
- Mike Johanns (R-NE)
- Dick Lugar (R-IN)
- Mitch McConnell (R-KY)
- Pat Roberts (R-KS)
- John R. Thune (R-SD)
Appropriations
Chair: Daniel Inouye (D-HI) Ag Sub-Committee
Chair: Herb Kohl (D-WI)
- Byron Dorgan (D-ND)
- Dick Durbin (D-IL)
- Dianne Feinstein (D-CA)
- Tom Harkin (D-IA)
- Tim Johnson (D-SD)
- Ben Nelson (D-NE)
- Jack Reed (D-RI)
- Robert Bennett (R-UT)
- Christopher Bond (R-MO)
- Sam Brownback (R-KS)
- Thad Cochran (R-MS)
- Mitch McConnell (R-KY)
- Arlen Specter (R-PA)
Health, Education, Labor, & Pensions
- Chris Dodd (D-CT)
Agriculture
Chair: B Collin Peterson (D-MN)
V. Chair: B Tim Holden (D-PA)
B Joe Baca (D-CA)
- John Boccieri (D-OH)
B* Leonard Boswell (D-IA)
- Bobby Bright (D-AL)
B* Dennis Cardoza (D-CA)
- Travis Childers (D-MS)
B Jim Costa (D-CA)
- Henry Cuellar (D-TX)
- Kathy Dahlkemper (D-PA)
B Brad Ellsworth (D-IN)
- Debbie Halvorson (D-IL)
B Stephanie Herseth Sandlin (D-SD)
- Steve Kagen (D-WI)
- Larry Kissell (D-NC)
B Frank Kratovil (D-MD)
- Betsy Markey (D-CO)
B Jim Marshall (D-GA)
P Eric Massa (D-NY)
B Mike McIntyre (D-NC)
- Walt Minnick (D-ID)
B Earl Pomeroy (D-ND)
- Mark Schauer (D-MI)
- Kurt Schrader (D-OR)
B David Scott (D-GA)
B Zachary Space (D-OH)
- Timothy Walz (D-MN)
- Frank Lucas (R-OK)
- Bill Cassidy (R-LA)
- K. Michael Conaway (R-TX)
- Jeff Fortenberry (R-NE)
- Virginia Foxx (R-NC)
- Bob Goodlatte (R-VA)
- Sam Graves (R-MO)
- Timothy Johnson (R-IL)
- Steve King (R-IA)
- Robert Latta (R-OH)
- Blaine Luetkemeyer (R-MO)
- Cynthia Lummis (R-WY)
- Jerry Moran (R-KS)
- Randy Neugebauer (R-TX)
- Phil Roe (R-TN)
- Mike Rogers (R-AL)
- Jean Schmidt (R-OH)
- Adrian Smith (R-NE)
- Glenn Thompson (R-PA) *=House Organic Caucus member B=Blue Dog Democrat
Appropriations
Chair: Dave Obey (D-WI) Ag Sub-Committee
Chair: P Rosa DeLauro (D-CT)
- Sanford Bishop (D-GA)
* Allen Boyd (D-FL)
- Lincoln Davis (D-TN)
*P Sam Farr (D-CA)
*P Maurice D. Hinchey (D-NY)
P Jesse L. Jackson, Jr. (D-IL)
P Marcy Kaptur (D-OH)
- Jack Kingston (R-GA)
- Rodney Alexander (R-LA)
- Jo Ann Emerson (R-MO)
* Tom Latham (R-IA) *=House Organic Caucus member
P=Congressional Progressive Caucus
Education and Labor
P Chair: George Miller (D-CA)
- Jason Altmire (D-PA)
- Robert Andrews (D-NJ)
- Timothy Bishop (D-NY)
P Yvette Clarke (D-NY)
- Joe Courtney (D-CT)
- Susan Davis (D-CA)
P Marcia Fudge (D-OH)
P Raul Grijalva (D-AZ)
P Phil Hare (D-IL)
- Ruben Hinojosa (D-TX)
P Mazie Hirono (D-HI)
- Rush Holt (D-NJ)
- Dale Kildee (D-MI)
P Dennis Kucinich (D-OH)
P Dave Loebsack (D-IA)
- Carolyn McCarthy (D-NY)
P Donald Payne (D-NJ)
- Jared Polis (D-CO)
- Robert Scott (D-VA)
- Joe Sestak (D-PA)
- Carol Shea-Porter (D-NH)
P John Tierney (D-MA)
- Dina Titus (D-NV)
- Paul Tonko (D-NY)
P Lynn Woolsey (D-CA)
- David Wu (D-OR)
- Buck McKeon (R-CA)
- Judy Biggert (R-IL)
- Rob Bishop (R-UT)
- Bill Cassidy (R-LA)
- Michael Castle (R-DE)
- Vernon Ehlers (R-MI)
- Luis F Fortuno (R-PR)
- Brett Guthrie (R-KY)
- Peter Hoekstra (R-MI)
- Duncan D. Hunter (R-CA)
- John Kline (R-MN)
- Kenny Marchant (R-TX)
- Tom McClintock (R-CA)
- Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-WA)
- Thomas Petri (R-WI)
- Phil Roe (R-TN)
- Todd Russell Platts (R-PA)
- Tom Price (R-GA)
- Mark Souder (R-IN)
- GT Thompson (R-PA)
- Joe Wilson (R-SC) P=Congressional Progressive Caucus
In medieval times, alchemists tried to change less valuable metals into gold. Of course, that's impossible - unless you've got the ability to add and subtract protons from atoms to change one element to another. And I get the distinct feeling that today's biotech companies are trying to do the very same thing.
Now, one year after the Honduran coup that ousted Honduran President Zelaya, Zelaya has come out saying that the U.S. was behind the coup. According to Zelaya:
His ouster was the result, the letter said, of adopting measures in 2006 that affected U.S. oil companies, and a plan to convert the U.S.-built Palmerola airbase into a civilian airport.
Another reason for his fall, according to Zelaya, was his rejection of the "recessionary policies of the IMF (International Monetary Fund)" in favor of subsidizing transportation and boosting wages.
Zelaya also claimed that Washington also didn't approve of Honduras' decision to join Venezuela's Petrocaribe initiative, under which Caribbean and Central American nations receive Venezuelan oil on generous terms.
The U.S., of course, denies it. That said, the U.S. is having a great time in post-Zelaya Honduras. Last week, a USDA press release described how the U.S. is promoting biotech in Honduras, which Zelaya's successor, President Lobo, supports. The press release tells how the U.S. donates excess U.S. agricultural commodities to a group in Honduras, which sells the commodities and uses the money to buy the inputs for industrial agriculture. Awesome. I must say that the only benefit of being flat broke is that I pay minimal taxes to the U.S. government to support this garbage.
A battle is quietly being waged between the industry that produces genetically modified seeds and scientists trying to investigate the environmental impacts of engineered crops. Although companies have recently given ground, researchers say these firms are still loath to allow independent analyses of their patented - and profitable - seeds.
The article goes on:
In February 2009, frustrated by industry restrictions on independent research into genetically modified crops, two dozen scientists representing public research institutions in 17 corn-producing states told the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) that the companies producing genetically modified (GM) seed "inhibit public scientists from pursuing their mandated role on behalf of the public good" and warned that industry influence had made independent analyses of transgenic crops impossible.
The article describes how scientists used to be able to just go to the seed store and buy seeds if they wanted to test them. With patented genetically engineered seeds, that is not the case:
If a scientist wanted to compare brands of seeds, for instance, or their environmental impact, he or she had to seek permission from each seed company or gene patent holder. Open access to the study's data and the right to publish that data had to be secured, while, for their part, the companies sought to protect their patents and intellectual property rights. Even if the companies did not object, contract negotiations, made on a case-by-case basis, could be extended and onerous. Making things worse was that with fewer public monies available for farm research, scientists, and their universities, found themselves increasingly dependent on the seed companies for funding.
Here's one more important quote:
For 10 years, Shields says, he and his fellow scientists worked around the companies' restrictions. But they felt that too many scientific issues were not being addressed. In particular, scientists could not be certain that multi-year studies would be renewed or that they'd be allowed to follow up on unexpected findings "which reflects the very essence of scientific inquiry." Such uncertainties, says Shields, meant that many experiments were never initiated.
This is an important article. The end of the article goes on to describe a new development - a voluntary agreement with no enforcement mechanism that the seed companies will loosen up and allow more independent research to take place. There are several catches to this agreement, however. For example, seeds only fall under the agreement AFTER they are commercialized. Thus, there will still be little (if any) independent testing of GE seeds before they are legal. That seems incredibly foolhardy, for obvious reasons. What will be the bigger impact of this agreement: allowing for independent research or merely creating the appearance that there is independent research taking place?
It depends on who you listen to. According to the New York Times, this was a clear win for Monsanto. And, worse, it was a 7 to 1 vote. But the Center for Food Safety says otherwise. In the decision, it is STILL illegal to plant Roundup Ready Alfalfa until the USDA deregulates it (again). And, if they want to deregulate it (and they do), they must complete an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS).
The lower court decision that the Supreme Court overturned was a two-part move against Monsanto. There was the vacatur, which nullified the USDA's decision to deregulate GE alfalfa, and there was an injunction, which banned most planting of GE alfalfa until the USDA did a proper EIS. The court removed the injunction BUT said that the vacatur alone (which stands) was enough to keep GE alfalfa illegal for now, until the USDA does its EIS. The EIS is a year away from completion.
Also important is this (from the Center for Food Safety):
The Court further recognized that the threat of transgenic contamination is harmful and onerous to organic and conventional farmers and that the injury allows them to challenge future biotech crop commercializations in court.
At the start of this month, the U.S. unveiled new efforts by USAID to feed the world. Instead of merely providing food aid, now the U.S. plans to support developing nations with agricultural support so they can feed themselves. In theory, this is brilliant. In practice, I doubt it will be. The reason - which I've said before on this blog - is simple: the U.S. is following a plan that runs counter to the recommendations of 400 scientists from around the world (the IAASTD report).
This past week, USAID head Rajiv Shah gave a speech at the Chicago Council on Global Affairs. This heavily corporate funded group came up with their own study to counter the IAASTD report findings and to say what the U.S. wanted to hear. In short, they recommend a continuation of industrial agriculture and an increase in biotechnology and genetic engineering and they do not address the harm free trade has on developing nations.
The wonderful Rep. Peter DeFazio and Sen. Pat Leahy are circulating a letter to Tom Vilsack opposing the USDA's decision regarding GE alfalfa. The issue is currently before the Supreme Court, so even though the USDA deregulated GE alfalfa some years ago, a lower court halted the planting of most GE alfalfa until the proper environmental impact study could be performed. DeFazio and Leahy are currently looking for more members of Congress to sign their letter before they submit it to Tom Vilsack.
Below, see the letter they are circulating to members of Congress asking for sign ons as well as the letter to Vilsack himself. If you want your representatives to sign on, give them a call about this or email them and ask them to please sign on.
USAID has a new initiative it calls "Feed the Future." This is just the latest incarnation of the ongoing U.S. plan to "help world hunger" by pushing biotech and industrial ag on poor countries. They've just announced 20 countries they plan to work with. In a recent Senate hearing, they made it clear that they are absolutely working to serve U.S. interests and if a country doesn't want to do it our way, we won't work with them. The countries are: Ethiopia, Ghana, Kenya, Liberia, Mali, Malawi, Mozambique, Rwanda, Senegal, Tanzania, Uganda, and Zambia in Africa; Bangladesh, Cambodia, Nepal, Tajikistan in Asia; and Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras, and, Nicaragua in Latin America. See the press release below.
Yesterday, the Supreme Court heard Monsanto's Roundup Ready Alfalfa case. Roundup Ready Alfalfa is a genetically engineered alfalfa plant that does not die when you spray it with Monsanto's herbicide Roundup. The intended use of Roundup Ready Alfalfa is that farmers plant it, spray their entire fields (including the alfalfa) with Roundup, and the weeds die but the alfalfa lives. I read the transcript, which is available here and FULL of legalese.
Having bad policy in our own country is one thing... forcing bad policy on an international scale is another. In the U.S. products with genetically modified ingredients are not currently labeled. On occasion, products are labeled as "GMO-free." Also, certified organic products are all GMO-free. However, the issue at stake now is on a larger scale.
During the first week in May, members of the international community are meeting in Canada to discuss international food labeling standards. This is a part of Codex Alimentarius, a UN agency that develops food and safety standards (and freaks a lot of people out). The U.S. (specifically the USDA and FDA) has drafted a position that opposes a Codex document allowing countries to each set their own rules on labeling genetically modified foods. In other words, the U.S. wants to keep the entire world from labeling GMOs. They want this because U.S. companies make a fortune selling GM seeds, and the U.S. produces a large percentage of the world's genetically modified crops. And one of our governement's top food safety gurus, Michael Taylor, used to work for Monsanto. (That's not the reason they give for their opposition, of course. But who are they kidding?)
Unfortunately (for Michael Taylor), the people of the United States don't all agree with Michael Taylor. Some of us WANT GMOs to be labeled. At the very least, other countries should have the right to require labels even if our country does not. Thus, 80+ groups have signed onto a letter to the USDA and FDA opposing their opposition to Codex letting countries set their own policies on GMO labeling. (In other words, the signers of the letter WANT countries to be permitted to require GMO labeling if they wish.)
Signers of the letter include Consumers Union, Food Democracy Now, the Union of Concerned Scientists, R-CALF USA, Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy, and a vast number of organic food, farming, and consumer groups, anti-GMO groups, pesticide reform groups, food companies, and farms. You can view Consumers Union's press release about the letter below, and you can view the letter here [PDF].
The Boston Globe just printed a whopper: "Genetically engineered crops are more environmentally friendly than organic ones." This is the same lie we've been hearing from a long time, and it's coming from more or less the same source. In this case, the source is Elliot Entis, a former board member of the Biotechnology Industry Organization (BIO) - the biotech industry lobby group.
I know what this article says without reading it: organic yields less than conventional, GMO ag and therefore organic is worse for the earth. People who oppose GMOs and love organics are idealists who don't know the first thing about growing food. We need GMOs to feed the earth. And that is exactly what the article DOES say. None of it becomes any less of a lie just because the Boston Globe was hoodwinked into printing it. Honestly, this is outrageous and newspapers should be held to a higher standard. We expect them to give us the hard facts, not dumb lies.
If you want to express your outrage on this, please write the Boston Globe a letter to the editor within the next week. Use the following points:
1. The Rodale Institute's Farm Systems Trials show that organic yields as much or MORE than conventional, GMO ag for corn and soy.
2. For all crops, organic yields a little more than 90% as much as conventional in the U.S. but produces 80% MORE than conventional in the developing world.
3. Therefore, the entire argument made in the article is blown to bits because it was entirely based on that premise.
4. The Union of Concerned Scientists found that GMOs resulted in a net INCREASE of pesticide use overall. Also, the numbers given for Bt crops that boast a decrease of pesticides do not account for the pesticide produced by the plants themselves.
5. Bt is not as benign when produced by GM crops as it is when sprayed on by organic farmers. That is because when it is sprayed on as needed, it then breaks down in the environment quickly. When it is produced by every cell of every plant, it is always present. Thus, it puts us at risk of losing Bt as an effective organic management tool for pests because it will promote the evolution of Bt-resistant pests.
To submit a letter to the editor
e-mail letter@globe.com or use our form.
Letters may be sent by regular mail to this address:
Letters to the Editor
The Boston Globe
P.O. Box 55819
Boston, MA 02205-5819
Or by fax to (617) 929-2098
Please include your full name, address, and a telephone number for confirmation purposes. Letters should be 200 words or less and are subject to condensation.
Let me summarize the article for you: Bla bla bla... drought-tolerant corn... global warming... Africa really fucked... feed 9 billion people... bla bla bla... Gates Foundation.
There. Now you don't have to read it. It says nothing new and contains zero critical thinking or alternate viewpoints. There was one section of the piece that was right on:
Charles Godfray, a professor at the Department of Zoology at Oxford University who recently co-authored a paper in the journal Science about the challenges of feeding 9 billion people, said that the impact of climate change on agriculture will be negative. Although warming will open up lands in cooler regions for cultivation, it will not compensate for the loss of water and land in areas near the tropics, he said.
"The current system of agriculture is not sustainable," he said. "Water is arterial. We will run out of water in parts of the world."
Yep. The Africa-is-fucked-if-things-don't-change meme is correct. And the African-corn-production-is-in-trouble idea is also correct:
But the continent is drought-prone, with millions of farmers relying on rainfall for their crops grown in small land holdings. Corn is most widely grown, with almost 300 million people in sub-Saharan Africa using it as the main source of food. And it is grown in rain-fed regions prone to crop failures.
Riiight. So how about we grow something other than corn? I'm very disappointed at the New York Times failure to only present one side - a side that is opposed by scientists world wide - on this matter.
Two weeks ago, I wrote about a federal hearing which could have ordered a nationwide halt to the planting and use of genetically modified sugar beets while the USDA conducts an environmental impact assessment, potentially affecting half of American sugar supplies. The judge in that case has issued his decision, and it's a mixed bag.
In Monsanto v. Geertson Seed Farms, No. 09-475, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear arguments in a case which could have an enormous effect on the future of the American food industry. This is Monsanto's third appeal of the case, and if they win a favorable ruling from the high court, a deregulated Monsanto may find itself in position to corner the markets of numerous U.S. crops, and to litigate conventional farmers into oblivion.
Here's where it gets a bit dicier. Two Supreme Court justices have what appear to be direct conflicts of interest.
Stephen Breyer
Charles Breyer, the judge who ruled in the original decision of 2007 which is being appealed, is Stephen Breyer's brother, who apparently views this as a conflict of interest and has recused himself.
Clarence Thomas
From the years 1976 - 1979, Thomas worked as an attorney for Monsanto. Thomas apparently does not see this as a conflict of interest and has not recused himself.
"Modern and conventional biotechnologies provide potent tools for the agriculture sector, including fisheries and forestry," said FAO Assistant Director-General Modibo Traore.
"But biotechnologies are not yet making a significant impact in the lives of people in most developing countries," Mr. Traore told the FAO-sponsored conference on Agricultural Biotechnologies in Developing Countries in Guadalajara, Mexico.
He told participants at the four-day gathering, co-hosted by the UN International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD), that most poor nations currently lack appropriate and useful technologies, policies, technical capacities, and the necessary infrastructure for the development, evaluation and deployment of biotechnologies. [emphasis mine]
However, the agency noted that there is often an emphasis on genetically modified organisms only, underscoring the need for a new approach to agricultural research and development which supports a wider use of biodiversity to promote development and improve food security.
It's nice to see the UN using words like "biodiversity." Now if they could just graduate to using the word "agroecological" I'd be really happy!
You may have seen an action alert going around by Food Democracy Now about Monsanto's GM Alfalfa. The introduction of genetically modified alfalfa will contaminate organic alfalfa and that will cause significant economic harm to small conventional and organic family farmers.
Food Democracy Now says:
During the Bush administration, Monsanto illegally won USDA approval for its GMO alfalfa by convincing USDA regulators to bypass a mandatory environmental review. In 2007, a court reversed this decision, ordering the USDA to complete the legally required environmental impact statement (EIS).
Shockingly, the Obama Administration's recent review would approve Monsanto's GMO alfalfa.
The draft USDA EIS was issued in December 2009 and is poised to allow Monsanto's GMO alfalfa on the market, despite the fact that the USDA admits that these seeds will contaminate organic feed that organic dairy farmers rely on to produce organic milk.
According to the CEO of the largest farmer-owned organic dairy coop in the U.S., GMO alfalfa "threatens the very fabric of the organic industry." We can't allow this to happen.
Despite massive public outcry in the past, the USDA's environmental review went so far as to say that U.S. organic consumers don't care about GMO contamination.
Tell Secretary Vilsack that you care about organic contamination and that you want him to stand up for the organic industry and organic consumers.
What you can do BY END OF DAY TODAY:
1) Calling is absolutely the best, and the hold time is not onerous:
White House Comments: 202-456-1111
In Monsanto v. Geertson Seed Farms, No. 09-475, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear arguments in a case which could have an enormous effect on the future of the American food industry. This is Monsanto's third appeal of the case, and if they win a favorable ruling from the high court, a deregulated Monsanto may find itself in position to corner the markets of numerous U.S. crops, and to litigate conventional farmers into oblivion. 
