Call To Ban Natural Gas Drilling Heard Around The World, But Not Heeded

By Theodora Filis

Environmental and health concerns have people around the world calling for a ban on natural gas drilling. Global warming effects of methane in natural gas are many times greater than the global warming effects of carbon dioxide. Subsidies granted to gas drilling promote the use of fossil fuels and undermine the development of conservation, efficiency, and renewable energy sources.

From the Permian Basin (western Texas and the southeastern part of New Mexico) to the Paris Basin, from Pennsylvania to Poland it is clear that in the next 20 years the global natural gas industry will not only be far bigger and more valuable than it is in 2011, but it will also be much more diversified.

Communities around the world will be faced with costs for baseline-testing of water pollutants, emergency response, health department monitoring of complaints, property tax assessment changes, building and repairing roads, and waste water treatment facilities.

Samples of flowback fluids in Pennsylvania and West Virginia have shown concentrations of cancer-causing chemicals that weren’t included in the list of Department of Environmental Conservation’s (DEC) hydraulic fracturing chemicals, and that in some instances the concentration of a single one of these carcinogenic chemicals exceeded 0.5% of the fluid – which is the purported total concentration of all chemicals in fracking fluid.

Studies reveal that components of natural gas affected the reproductive health of women working in gas processing plants in Russia.

The US National Energy Policy (NEP) adopted by President George W. Bush on May 17, 2001, led by former Halliburton CEO Vice President Dick Cheney, warned that the US was becoming ever more dependent on imported energy, thereby endangering national security. It called for increased reliance on domestic energy sources, especially oil and natural gas.

“A primary goal of the National Energy Policy is to add supply from diverse sources,” the document declared. “This means domestic oil, gas, and coal.”

Despite the obvious hazards and dangers, as well as inadequate safety practices, the Obama Administration backed corporate strategies strongly favoring the exploitation of oil and gas reservoirs in the deep waters of the Gulf of Mexico and other environmentally sensitive areas.

Nicolas Sarkozy, The Prime Minister of France, ordered a national ban on shale oil and gas drilling until June -- when two separate government reports will be released.

The government of Quebec halted all shale gas drilling until it can conduct its own in-depth analysis.

The Polish government, on the other hand, is ignoring the environmental impacts of gas drilling. Shale gas is now an issue of national foreign policy adopted by foreign minister Radoslaw Sikorski.

In the UK, Cuadrilla Resources has completed a test well in the Bowland Shale formation between Pendle Hill and Blackpool, in Lancashire. The company is backed by Riverstone Holdings, a private equity firm that former BP executive, Lord Browne, is a partner and managing director.

Companies are leasing land across Europe for gas exploration. Engineers and geologists from Italy and Norway have been to Texas, Oklahoma and Pennsylvania to learn how to extract gas from shale, and oil executives are now in Asia and North Africa mapping out gas fields.

The global call from citizens to preserve what is left of our clean water and clean air is being drowned out by the drilling for natural gas.

Chernobyl: 25 Years After A Catastrophic Nuclear Meltdown

By Theodora Filis

In what is now northern Ukraine, in the small village of Pripyat, in the city of Chernobyl, a catastrophic nuclear meltdown occurred 25 years ago on April 26, 1986. Together with the recent nuclear crisis in Japan, we need to ask ourselves if the world has progressed toward safer nuclear energy.

“It was a massive explosion- ten times the size of the Hiroshima bomb. It flung into the air 120 Tons of red hot nuclear fuel and more than 100 Tons of reactor graphite. The 500-Ton "biological shield" built over the reactor was hurled into air, crashing back down at an angle, leaving the reactor core exposed- spewing massive amounts of radiation. Flames shot 600 feet into the air. Fires started. Pieces of radioactive material were mashed into the structural debris. Almost 50 Tons of nuclear fuel were evaporated into dust, blown by the wind northwest across the Ukraine, Byelorussia, and the Baltic States.” The Truth About Chernobyl, by Grigori Medvedev

Thirty-one people died in the first three months after the explosion. Thousands more deaths have been associated with the disaster. About 200,000 people were evacuated because of the explosion. The disaster was first reported by officials in Sweden when abnormal radiation levels were detected at one of its nuclear facilities.

Before the nuclear disaster, the city of Pripyat had a population of about 50,000. Pripyat is not inhabitable. 500 people, primarily scientists, live in Chernobyl today.  During the meltdown, flames shot radiated material kilometers into the sky through breaches in the reactor facility, creating a radioactive cloud that spread over Western Europe.

Signed on May 28, 1959 at the 12th World Health Assembly, The World Health Organization (WHO) and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) signed an agreement that, some say, covers each others back, at the expense of public health. The WHO mandate is to look after the health on our planet, while the IAEA is to promote nuclear energy. Many prominent scientists and public health officials have criticized WHO’s non-competing relationship with IEAE saying it prevents efforts to address, and share, information about the 1986 Chernobyl accident.

On the 20th Anniversary of Chernobyl WHO and the IAEA published the Chernobyl Forum Report, mentioning only 350 sources, mainly from the English literature while in reality there are more than 30,000 publications and up to 170,000 sources that address the consequences of Chernobyl.

The greatest amount of radioactivity fell outside of Belarus, Ukraine and European Russia, extending across the northern hemisphere as far away as Asia, North Africa, and North America, while the greatest concentrations continue to affect the 13 million living in Belarus, Ukraine, and European Russia.

Immediately after the catastrophe, release of information was limited, and there was a delay in collecting data. WHO, supported by governments worldwide could have been pro-active and led the way to provide readily accessible information, but did not. These omissions resulted in several effects: limited monitoring of fallout levels, delays in getting stable potassium iodide to people, lack of care for many, and delay in prevention of contamination of the food supply.

To date, not every living system has been studied, but of those that have – animals, birds, fish, amphibians, invertebrates, insects, trees, plants, bacteria, viruses and humans – many with genetic instability across generations, all sustained changes, some permanent, and some fatal. Wild and domestic animals and birds developed abnormalities and diseases similar to those found in humans.

It takes ten decades for an isotope to completely decay, thus the approximately 30 year half-lives for Sr-90 and Cs-137 will take nearly three centuries before they have decayed.

In 25 years since Chernobyl, the economic damage to Belarus, Ukraine, and Russia has exceeded $500 billion. Belarus spends about 20% of its national annual budget, Ukraine up to 6%, and Russia up to 1% to partially mitigate some of the consequences.

When a radiation release occurs we do not know in advance the part of the biosphere it will contaminate, the animals, plants, and people that will be affected, nor the amount or duration of harm. In many cases, damage is random, depending upon the health, age, and status of development and the amount, kind, and variety of radioactive contamination that reaches humans, animals and plants. For this reason, international support of research on the consequences of Chernobyl must continue in order to mitigate the ongoing and increasing damage.

Biotech Industry Allowed To Conduct Their Own GMO Assessments!

By Theodora Filis

It has been twelve years since the world's first GM crop, the Flav Savr tomato, was commercially approved, and hundreds more GM varieties were granted deregulation status. The global area of GM crops has reached 102 million hectares, according to industry sources, though this has been strongly contested around the world.

In August 2006, a federal district judge in Hawaii ruled on the first case involving GMOs – drug-producing GM crops. The judge in this case ruled that the USDA violated the Endangered Species Act as well as the National Environmental Policy Act in allowing drug-producing GM crops to be cultivated throughout Hawaii, and failing to conduct even preliminary investigations on environmental impact prior to the approval of planting.

The plaintiffs were the Center for Food Safety, KAHEA (The Hawaiian Environmental Alliance), Friends of the Earth, and the Pesticide Action Network, North America.

The defendants were the US Secretary of Agriculture and administrators of the USDA.

In all cases involving GMOs, the USDA was found to have overlooked the law and disregarded health and environmental concerns in their approvals of the GM crops.

Before approving any GM crop, the USDA is required to conduct proper environmental impact statements (EIS). Despite years-worth of GM crop approvals, the agency has never once actually completed an EIS -- that is until the 2007 court ruling that required it to for GM alfalfa.

After being legally challenged in 2007 over its initial approval of GM alfalfa, the USDA was ordered by a federal court to complete a proper EIS, and Monsanto was ordered to stop planting GM alfalfa until it could be proven that its "Frankencrop" was safe for the environment and humans. The USDA completed the EIS in late December, and it actually revealed very serious problems with GM alfalfa, including the widespread damage it will cause through cross-pollination.

However, despite the clear evidence that GM alfalfa is highly problematic and unfit for approval, USDA chief Tom Vilsack went ahead and approved it anyway.

"We expect Monsanto to force-feed people genetically engineered (GE) crops -- that's its business model," said Paul Achitoff, attorney for nonprofit environmental law firm Earthjustice. "We hoped for better from the USDA, which has much broader responsibilities."

Now, the USDA plans to experiment with a new way of evaluating bio-tech crops for potential commercialization. Under the agency's new two-year pilot project, bio-tech developers would conduct their own environmental assessment of transgenic crops or pay contractors to perform the analysis. Currently, officials at USDA's Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) are responsible for the studies.

Federal environmental law requires the agency to complete such reviews before deregulating bio-tech crops.

The goal of the new pilot program is to make the process more timely and efficient, according to APHIS. The approach has met with support from the bio-tech industry, which wants to reduce delays in the approval of transgenic crops. Many worry the program will result in biased and inaccurate environmental reviews.

Karen Batra of the Biotechnology Industry Organization said, the pilot program will not only help move crops through the process more quickly, but the added resources will also help the documents hold up in court.

"A big deterrent to future lawsuits would be if USDA were to win some of them," Batra said. "The more information the department has, the better case they can make."

In recent years, biotech opponents have won lawsuits claiming the agency violated environmental law by inadequately supporting its decision to deregulate transgenic alfalfa and sugar beets.

By allowing biotech developers to conduct their own environmental assessments, the process becomes subject to conflicts of interest, said Bill Freese, science policy analyst for the Center For Food Safety and a biotech opponent.

"It's like asking BP to write an assessment of an offshore drilling operation," he said.

The pilot program basically treats the environmental review process as a "rubber stamp" for getting biotech crops to market more quickly, side Freese.

To Nuke or Not To Nuke? The 411 On Microwave Oven Safety

By Theodora Filis

In some urban areas, microwave and related radiation is estimated to be up to a billion times or more as great as that which naturally exists in the environment.

Airports have navigational systems that use microwaves, and police radar operates on microwave frequencies. Television, telephone, and computer signals are transmitted by microwaves. Broadcasting, surveillance, and communications satellite systems utilize microwaves, as do some air pollution monitoring systems. Motorist-aid call boxes along the highway, many burglar alarm systems, and some automatic garage door openers work because of microwaves.

The world of medicine uses them for sterilization, to retard tumor growth, and to treat sore muscles. Industry and science each have their own uses for microwaves.

Researchers in Canada have developed an aircraft that can stay aloft for months at a time without fuel. The plane is powered by electricity, which is beamed up as microwave energy, then converted back into electrical energy, which powers the engine.

The military, by far the largest users of microwave devices in today’s world of electronic warfare, employ microwaves for such things as guidance systems for nuclear missiles and antimissile missiles, range finders for tanks, and for eavesdropping.

The Soviets allegedly used microwaves to irradiate the American Embassy in Moscow. Conversely, American warships would, reportedly, pull alongside Russian surveillance trawlers on the high seas, turn on their radars at full megawatt power, and "paint" the Soviet vessels with radiation. This would burn out the trawlers’ electronic listening devices, and probably accounts for the fact that Russian sailors were seldom seen on deck. – Paul Brodeur, The Zapping of America, (Norton, 1977) p. 308.

What’s the real story behind microwave oven convenience? Are microwaves a benign bastion of modern handiness or a sinister contributor to our physiological undoing?

Some of us swear off them. Others swear by them to get through the normal course of a busy day. And then there are those of us who routinely stare at each plate of leftovers, sometimes reaching for the pots and pans and other times giving into convenience.

Are we emitting dangerous radiation into our homes or killing off the nutritional value of our unsuspecting food? What should we believe? Is there enough evidence to really tell either way?

Today there is growing concern regarding the potential risks involved in exposure to low-level microwave radiation, in particular from microwave ovens, the most common consumer use of microwave energy.

Extensive research that began particularly in the mid-1970’s in the United States, and as far back as the 1930’s in Russia, is now rendering some interesting and controversial results.

One pertinent characteristic of microwaves is that they disperse and dissipate very quickly in the atmosphere. For example, the maximum allowable leakage from a microwave oven is 5 milliwatts of microwave radiation per square centimeter at approximately 2 inches from the oven surface. However, as you move away from the oven, the level of exposure to any energy, that may be leaking, decreases dramatically.

The opinion of scientists that microwave effects are cumulative, certainly increases the need for consumers to observe common sense precautions.

Stay at least an arm’s length away from the front of an operating oven. This is especially so with pregnant women according to the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) which states that the human fetus is "probably the most sensitive segment of the population potentially exposed to microwave radiation." Children represent another sensitive segment of the population. Never should anyone, and especially children, stand gazing into, or directly against an operating microwave oven.

If the door of an oven will not close properly, is bent, warped, tampered with, or otherwise damaged in any way, DO NOT OPERATE the oven.

Never operate an oven when it is empty. This creates a no-load condition, which can damage the oven and cause excess leakage.

Never inactivate, interfere with, or try to adjust the built-in safety interlock system of an oven. Tampering with safety interlocks would be similar to disconnecting the brakes on a car.

Guidelines from the International Radiation Protection Association (IRPA) suggest overall radiation limits of 1 milliwatt per square centimeter “averaged over 6 minutes (0.1 h) period.”

Additionally, the FDA requires two interlock systems that effectively offer backup security as well as a monitoring system that shuts the microwave down if one of the systems isn’t working or if the door is opened during operation. Common sense adds that you might want to make sure the microwave seal isn’t compromised by built up grime, and replace an old, dilapidated microwave oven.

Suggested Reading:

Microwave Ovens. Millions Use Them, But Should The... http://t.co/c4a93DY

Strict Regulations Needed To Protect Marcellus Shale Regions

By Theodora Filis

Responding to an investigative article published by The New York Times, February 26, 2011, on the high incidence of radioactive materials and other contaminants in the wastes produced from natural gas extraction, Rep. Edward J. Markey (D-Mass.) questioned the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) on its oversight of these extractive practices.

The New York Times found that upon completion of drilling, gas companies dispose of the used hydraulic fracturing water at municipal waste-water plants that are incapable of filtering the naturally existing radioactive substances that are dug up and mixed in with fracturing water in the drilling process. The end result is waste-water plants releasing treated water into rivers and other waterways that are public sources of drinking water as well as fish that are used for food.

“These disturbing revelations raise the prospect that natural gas production has turned our rivers and streams into this generation’s ‘Love Canals,’” said Rep. Markey in separate comments. “The natural gas industry has repeatedly claimed that fracking can be done safely. We now know we need a full investigation into exactly how fracking is done and what it does to our drinking water and our environment. Americans should not have to consume radioactive materials from their drinking water as a byproduct of natural gas production.”

Gas drilling is regulated independently by each state, often leading to inconsistent regulations and environmental protections, common concerns about each states oversight of gas drilling and hydraulic fracturing (fracking) exist across the Marcellus Shale region.

Agencies overseeing the drilling process do not currently have sufficient funding and staffing to inspect and monitor gas wells, and baseline data on water quality and soil chemistry is not required to be collected prior to issuing a permit for gas drilling.

Without this information, it is very hard to determine if fracking is the source of water pollution, and even more difficult to hold drilling companies accountable for contamination.

Pennsylvania, New York, West Virginia and Virginia do not have comprehensive statewide regulations and monitoring programs to determine how much water can be or is being taken from streams, rivers, lakes and the ground for hydraulic fracturing.

Without these basic rules, regulatory agencies cannot sufficiently determine the cumulative impacts on water resources, aquatic life and habitat from gas drilling an hydraulic fracturing.

The Fracturing Responsibility and Awareness of Chemicals (FRAC) Act was written to eliminate the so-called 2005 Halliburton exemption, which prevents the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) from regulating fracking through the Safe Drinking Water Act. The legislation would also require the disclosure of chemicals used in the hydraulic fracturing process.

Last week, Pennsylvania regulators called on Marcellus Shale natural-gas drillers to stop sending waste water to 15 treatment plants, citing an increased risk of contaminating public drinking water supplies.

"Now is the time to take action to end this practice," Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) acting Secretary Michael Krancer, said in a statement April 19, 2011.

DEP's action comes as the EPA and activists step up pressure to increase regulation of the shale-gas boom, including the massive volumes of toxic waste-water produced by the hydraulic fracturing process.

Regulators and the industry say they recognized several years ago that the disposal options were unsustainable, and the industry developed recycling techniques that allow the waste-water to be used in new wells. Waste-water can also be treated in energy-intensive distillation plants that concentrate the toxins in a heavy brine, which is sent to injection wells.

"Amidst growing concern by the public and increased scrutiny by the media, we are happy to see DEP finally take these critical steps to once and for all stop dangerous, under-treated Marcellus Shale waste-water from entering our waterways and drinking water supplies," said Erika Staaf, a spokeswoman for the PennEnvironment advocacy group.

Monsanto Calls Lawsuit By Organic Farmers “Misleading & Deceptive"

By Theodora Filis

On March 29th, 2011, Public Patent Foundation (PUBPAT) filed suit on behalf of 60 family farmers, seed businesses and organic agricultural organizations against Monsanto Company to challenge the chemical giant’s patents on genetically modified seed.


The organic plaintiffs were forced to sue pre-emptively to protect themselves from being accused of patent infringement should they ever become contaminated by Monsanto’s genetically modified seed, something Monsanto has done to others in the past.


The case, Organic Seed Growers & Trade Association, et al. v. Monsanto, was filed in federal district court in Manhattan.

Plaintiffs in the suit represent a broad range of family farmers, small businesses and organizations from within the organic agriculture community who are increasingly threatened by genetically modified seed contamination, despite using their best efforts to avoid it. The plaintiff organizations have over 270,000 members, including thousands of certified organic family farmers.

Monsanto calls the lawsuit against it by organic groups and growers a “publicity stunt,” adding that many of the allegations are “false, misleading and deceptive.”

According to a statement in Beyond the Rows, a blog written by Monsanto:

“Monsanto has not ever sued and has publicly committed to not sue farmers over the inadvertent presence of biotechnology traits in their fields.”

“The plaintiffs’ approach is a publicity stunt designed to confuse the facts about American agriculture. These efforts seek to reduce private and public investment in the development of new, higher-yielding seed technologies. This attack comes at a time when the world needs every agricultural tool available to meet the needs of a growing population, expected to reach nine billion people by 2050. While we respect the opinion of organic farmers as it relates to the products they choose to grow, we don’t believe that American agriculture faces an all-or-nothing approach.

Rather we believe that farmers should have the ability to choose the best agricultural tools to farm their own land and serve their own end-market customers. We are confident that these multiple approaches can co-exist side by side and sustainably meet the world’s food needs over next 40 years,” according to the Monsanto blog.

“We stand behind the American farmer, remain committed to investing in new tools to help American agriculture meet the needs of our growing world, and are prepared to vigorously defend ourselves.”

"This case asks whether Monsanto has the right to sue organic farmers for patent infringement if Monsanto’s transgenic seed should land on their property," said Dan Ravicher, Executive Director of Public Patent Foundation, which filed the lawsuit and charges that Monsanto “has made such accusations before and is notorious for having sued hundreds of farmers for patent infringement … ”

A New York federal district court holds the filing, instigated by more than 60 plaintiffs, including the Organic Seed Growers and Trade Association, Organic Crop Improvement Association International and The Cornucopia Institute.

It challenges the validity of Monsanto’s transgenic seed patents using, as legal basis, an 1817 lawsuit that determined “a new invention to poison people … is not a patentable invention” (Lowell v. Lewis, 15 F. Cas.1018). “Because transgenic seed, and in particular Monsanto’s transgenic seed, is ‘injurious to the well-being, good policy, or sound morals of society’ and threatens to ‘poison people,’ Monsanto’s transgenic seed patents are all invalid,” the lawsuit states.

Organic Seed Growers & Trade Association, et al. v. Monsanto... http://www.pubpat.org/assets/files/seed/OSGATA-v-Monsanto-Complaint.pdf.

Suggested Reading:
Organic Farmers & Monsanto Fight It Out In Court... http://t.co/tj1XICI

Don't Know If You're Eating GMOs? Then You Probably Are!... http://t.co/ZelbfJx

US Consumers Concerned About Unlabeled GMOs http://t.co/5kHm2wY

50 Year Old Pipelines Carrying Trillions Of Cubic Feet Of Natural Gas? Ka-Boom!

By Theodora Filis

A series of natural gas explosions has raised questions about the safety of the nation’s gas pipelines – now more than 50 years old.

According the US Department of Transportation (USDOT) and Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), there are more than two million miles of pipelines in the US, delivering trillions of cubic feet of natural gas.

The most devastating natural gas pipeline explosion occurred in September 2010, in San Bruno, CA when a 50-inch Pacific Gas & Electric pipeline, in a residential neighborhood, exploded and caused the death of eight people and injured fifty more. The resulting fires swept through the neighborhood, destroying 37 homes and damaging eight. The investigation found that the pipeline, installed in 1956, had numerous weld defects.

From 2005 to 2009 there was an average of 282 significant incidences involving pipelines in the US including an average of 51 injuries and 14 fatalities.

Pipeline failures are usually caused by excavations in the area of the pipeline. Pipelines are not installed in precise locations and it is easy for someone digging with a backhoe to hit one.

The other most common failure is due to corrosion either internal or external. That usually comes from a lack of proper inspection or failure to properly install the line or the introduction of contaminates into the pipeline during operation.

There are some failures due to improper safety features, pressure relief systems, poor quality welding, poor quality materials, operating at pressures in excess of the design pressure.

In February, the New York Times reported a natural gas explosion killed five people in Allentown, Pennsylvania. Two nearby homes were leveled others were so severely damaged they required demolition. The gas dates back to 1928.

Natural gas is an energy source that is commonly used in homes for cooking, heating, and water heating. It is primarily composed of methane. (Methane is a highly flammable chemical compound consisting of one carbon atom surrounded by four hydrogen atoms.) Natural gas leaks can occur inside the home and increases the risk of fire or explosion.

Because methane, and therefore, natural gas, does not have any odor, the gas company adds a warning “rotten-egg” smell that can be easily detected by most people. However, people who have a diminished sense of smell may not be able to rely upon this. A gas detector can be an important tool to help protect you and your family.

Last month, the Pennsylvania State Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) released an infrared video showing gasses being spewed out into the neighboring communities. These emissions cannot be seen by the naked eye, but the residents have been feeling the effects for years and are not at all surprised by the findings. Sore throat, headaches and nosebleeds are what nearby residents have been experiencing since hydraulic fracturing (fracking) began.

WTAE ABC Channel 4 in Pittsburgh aired a news story investigating the emissions from a Marcellus shale natural gas compressor station. 

Pittsburgh News Captures Infared Video of Compressor Emissions « Protecting Our Waters

http://wp.me/pUUjl-iH

The Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) says it doesn't know exactly what is being emitted in this video, but it does know it isn't just steam – the State EPA took this footage 9 months before it was released to the public.

The World's First Climate Refugees

By Theodora Filis

The 2011 Academy Awards documentary film categories were filled with nominees who have focused on controversial environmental themes. Sun Come Up, by Jennifer Redfearn and Tim Metzger, was an early favorite in the documentary short category.


Sun Come Up examines the fate of the Pacific Islands of Carteret whose people have become the globe’s first “climate refugees.”

The Carteret Islands are located off the coast of Papua New Guinea and were home to approx. 2,500 people. Haven’t heard of them? Don’t worry, you don’t need to brush up on your geography. Most people haven’t heard of them. Barely visible on most maps, in a few short years, they will not be on any at all.

Some scientists and experts believe volcanic activity and earthquakes are responsible for the sinking of the islands. Others point to the fluctuating nature of the natural life cycle of an atoll (an island that it constructed of coral and encircles a lagoon). Past removals of mangrove trees that kept the shoreline solid and acted as protection against the ocean have also contributed to the environmental destruction.

Whether the situation on the Carteret Islands is because of rising sea levels from climate change or a shifting of the Earth is uncertain. What is certain? The people who live there, will not be living there much longer.

A report by UN University’s Institute for Environment and Human Security, CARE International and Columbia University’s Center for International Earth Science Information Network warns that displacement due to global warming will be unprecedented. It estimates that by 2050 there may be 200 million environmentally-induced migrants. However, the exact number of people that will be on the move by mid-century is unknown.

Today there are roughly 214-million migrants globally. It is feared that substantial migration will give rise to border conflicts and national security concerns.

“While human migration and displacement is usually the result of multiple factors, the influence of climate change in people’s decision to give up their livelihoods and leave their homes is growing” says Dr. Charles Ehrhart, CARE International’s Climate Change Coordinator and one of the report’s authors.

The Carteret Islands of Papua New Guinea is one of the first island communities to be displaced by climate change and is currently being relocated to the larger island of Bourgainville. The relocation efforts have suffered from lack of funding and resistance from receiving communities.

It is estimated the Carteret Islands will be fully submerged and uninhabitable by 2015.

For now, climate refugees are not recognized by international law because they don’t meet the requirements of the 1951 Geneva Convention which considers “refugees to be someone fleeing violence or persecution."

Today, many experts want the Geneva Convention to be revised to legally recognize the status and conditions of climate refugees. This would force countries to legally recognize their status and condition, and would then be bound to look after this group of people.

However, recognizing that some people are climate refugees means acknowledging responsibility and asking who is to blame. Something many people will find hard to do.

European Parliament Votes To Extend Ban on GMOs

By Theodora Filis

European Member states could be given the right to ban genetically modified crops on environmental grounds under proposals put forward this week by the European Parliament's Environment Committee. Members voted to add “environmental impacts” to a list of grounds on which European Union (EU) countries could either ban or restrict genetically modified organisms (GMOs) usage.


At present, EU member states are only able to restrict genetically modified GMO crop cultivation under strict conditions, as authorization licenses are valid across the 27-country bloc, in accordance with the principles of the EU's single market.

France's Corinne Lepage, draftswomen for the rules, said it sent a clear signal to the commission. "The EU authorisation system should be maintained but it should be acknowledged that some agricultural and environmental impacts, as well as socio-economic impacts linked to contamination, can be cited by member states to justify a ban or restriction on GMO cultivation," she said.

A few months earlier the European Commission had suggested that GMOs could be banned by individual countries only for moral or cultural reasons, but the European Parliament's environment committee has voted to extend the criteria.

Greenpeace said the "voice of reason" had prevailed. Its EU agriculture policy adviser Stefanie Hundsdorfer added: "Environmental impacts are a major danger of GM crops and including these into law will help governments ban them from Europe's fields. Without these grounds, national bans would be in danger of being overturned by biotech companies in court."

All member states will be allowed to take mandatory measures against GM contamination, and biotech companies must now give access to material required for independent research into any potential risks.

The Commission said countries should not use environmental or health grounds to justify bans, because these were already taken into account during the EU safety approval process, which is not altered by the draft legislation.

EU governments including France, Britain and Germany had already signaled their opposition to the Commission's proposals, citing fears that they breach world trade rules and could lead to legal challenges by biotech companies, exporting countries and EU farmers.

The draft rules must be jointly approved by EU governments and legislators before becoming law.

A vote on the environment committee's amendments and other proposed changes to the draft legislation will be held in June.

Scientific Community Urges Long-Term GMO Safety Studies – But Are Ignored

By Theodora Filis

A new report, published in Environmental Sciences Europe on March 1, 2011, confirms a diet of Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs) effects the liver and kidney, the major reactive organs in cases of chronic food toxicity. “Other organs may be affected too, such as the heart and spleen, or blood cells,” stated the paper. “In fact some of the animals fed genetically modified organisms had altered body weights in at least one gender, which is “a very good predictor of side effects in various organs.”

The American Academy of Environmental Medicine (AAEM) also reports that “Several animal studies indicate serious health risks associated with GM food,” including infertility, immune problems, accelerated aging, faulty insulin regulation, and changes in major organs and the gastrointestinal system. The AAEM asked physicians to advise patients to avoid Genetically Modified (GM) foods.

Before the FDA decided to allow GMOs into food without labeling, FDA scientists had repeatedly warned that GM foods can create unpredictable, hard-to-detect side effects, including allergies, toxins, new diseases, and nutritional problems. They urged long-term safety studies, but were ignored.

Numerous scientific studies have found a link between the most common GMOs (in particular, GM maize (corn) and soybeans) and severe organ problems in rats and mice. Data from several independent studies indicate liver and kidney problems as end points of GMO diet effects.

GMOs tend to affect different genders in a slightly different way. Males were more affected than females, however, with the same overall negative result.

There are no human clinical trials of GM foods. The only published human feeding experiment revealed that the genetic material inserted into GM soy transfers into bacteria living inside our intestines and continues to function. This means that long after we stop eating GM foods, we may still have their GM proteins produced continuously inside us.

Safety assessments are too superficial to even identify most of the potential dangers from GMOs.

French Professor Gilles-Eric Seralini, molecular endocrinologist at the University of Caen and a member of two French government commissions evaluating GM food, found that several varieties of GM crops, showed statistically significant problems in animal studies that regulators have not pursued with follow-up research.

Seralini said the effects of the GM crops were similar to that of pesticides, including inflammation disorders, and problems with livers and kidneys, two major organs involved with detoxification.

Biology Professor, Bela Darvas, of Hungary's Debrecen University, discovered that Monsanto’s Mon 810 (a variety of genetically modified maize (corn) developed by Monsanto Company and marketed with the trade name YieldGard) is lethal to two Hungarian protected species and one insect classified as rare. Monsanto has refused to give Professor Darvas any more Mon 810 corn to use in his tests. Monsanto also refused his request for Mon 863, another GM variety.

So, not only has MON 810 been shown to cause serious damage to animals, but it may also wipe out protected plant and insect species. Of course, adding to the potential devastation is the fact that corn is a wind-pollinated plant, which means it depends on the wind for pollination.

While growers of GM food often say their crops will be contained and unable to contaminate nearby fields, from an environmental perspective contamination between GM and non-GM crops is generally acknowledged to be unavoidable.

Really what can stop wind, tornadoes or other weather from blowing or transporting GM pollen or seeds over onto non-GM crops?

Not a whole lot.

US Consumers Concerned About Unlabeled GMOs

By Theodora Filis

US consumers are concerned the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is not protecting them from unlabeled, patented, genetically engineered foods that are quickly and quietly filling grocery store shelves.

Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs) in baby formula and other foods sold in the US is not new, but what is new, is a growing number of “green" towns campaigning to have foods labeled that use Round up Ready GMO soy & corn ingredients, and milk from cows that have been injected with rbST Growth Hormone.

The Future of Food, a documentary that has earned the Human Rights Award is critical of the FDA for not requiring GMO labeling in the US, while in Japan and Europe – labeling is mandatory.

The Future of Food examines the complex web of market and political forces that are changing what we eat as huge multinational corporations seek to control the world’s food system.

Environmentalists around the country are concerned that the process of genetic engineering is imprecise and random. 

A GMO Risk Assessment and Management report, released last month by the European Parliament, Brussels, states that all European Union countries, non-EU countries, industry, and scientific communities worldwide have expressed concern over the growth rate of GMOs on farms and in manufactured foods.

Greenpeace and the World Wildlife Fund have called for additional and more rigorous testing before marketing genetically engineered foods in the US. “Sadly, much of the GMOs are now in baby formulas and other foods that we eat.” – Greenpeace

FDA To Approve GE Salmon But Wants Consumers Left In The Dark

By Theodora Filis

Last month, California State Assemblyman Jared Huffman introduced a bill requiring any AquaBounty's genetically engineered salmon sold in the state to be clearly labeled for the public, together with Alaska senators who reintroduced their bills, one to ban the GE animal from being cultivated in Alaskan waters and one to require that it be labeled.

AquaAdvantage salmon developed by AquaBounty Technologies is an Atlantic salmon modified with genes from a Chinook salmon and an ocean pout, which makes for a faster-growing fish that requires 10 percent less feed. Regardless of a wary public, a protest letter by 11 Pacific Northwestern senators, and strong warnings by an overwhelming amount of government scientists and public interest groups, the FDA looks to be moving closer to approving the salmon.

Just like any other GMO, this salmon is a patented product. Once fishermen own the product -- or their waters are unintentionally contaminated with the product -- they'll have to continue purchasing it to continue using it. Just as GM corn seeds can't be saved, these salmon won't breed on their own. And as opponents have warned, there's no telling if they're safe for human consumption, as the FDA has not conducted adequate testing.

Concerns, such as fish escaping and breeding with other salmon, have been raised about the AquAdvantage salmon. It may also cause additional harm to the environment, causing more waste than “regular” salmon.

Because of this, the salmon have to be engineered to be sterile, another GMO-use. And AquaBounty claims that using this wouldn’t cause more planet farm, but instead “help reduce pressure on wild fish stocks suffering from over-fishing.”

AquaBounty is confident for a positive ruling soon from the FDA, given the agency’s previous approval of the salmon.

Anticipating the FDA approval AquaBounty salmon, lawmakers from Alaska, Oregon and Washington have introduced a backup plan to protect American consumers and wild fish populations.

The Alaskan bipartisan bills come from senators Mark Begich (D-AK) and Lisa Murkowski (R-AK). "Frankenfish threatens our wild stocks, their habitat, our food safety and would bring economic harm to Alaska's wild salmon fishermen," said Begich The fish are "risky, unprecedented and unnecessary," he adds.

The bill to ban GMO fish is co-sponsored by Sen. Patty Murray (D-Washington). The bill requiring labeling, should GE fish get approved, is co-sponsored by Sen. Murray and Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Oregon).

If that fails, an alternate bill (Bill# S. 229/H.R. 520) would require companies to at least put a sticker on any product that contains frankenfish to let Americans know what they are eating.

"Frankenfish are uncertain and unnecessary," said one representative. "The assessments of these 'fish' are flawed at best and the threat to the population of our wild salmon stock is unacceptable."

Consumers, who have the purchasing power, have the right to know if they are eating sterile fish spliced with the growth hormone of a Chinook and the genetic code of an ocean pout.

Suggested Reading:
Genetically Engineered Salmon No Laughing Matter
FDA Caught Hiding The Truth About GMO Salmon
Genetically Modified Fish: It's What's For Dinner! 

Cloned Cows' Milk Could Someday Replace Baby Formula

By Theodora Filis

Babies could someday drink human-like milk derived from herds of genetically modified dairy cows, which scientists say could supplement breast milk and replace baby formula.

A research, published in PLoS One, claims to be the first study to result in the production of a herd of cloned transgenic cattle expressing recombinant human lysozyme (rHLZ) in their milk.

Lysozyme, a bactericidal protein that protects human infants from microbial infections, and is found in only trace amounts in cow milk. The researchers said that the new transgenic milk may allow for the transfer of the nutritional aspects of human lysozyme in human milk to bovine milk.

“Our study not only describes transgenic cattle whose milk offers the similar nutritional benefits as human milk but also reports techniques that could be further refined for production of active human lysozyme on a large scale,” said the authors, led by Professor Ning Li, at the China Agricultural University, China.

Writing in the journal Public Library of Science One, Prof Li’s team said they used cloning technology to introduce human genes into the DNA of Holstein dairy cows. One variety of the GM cows produced milk containing lysozyme – an antimicrobial protein found in breast milk that protects babies from infection. They also created cows that produced human lactoferrin, a protein which boosts the immune system.

A third human milk protein called alpha-lactalbumin was also expressed in the milk. Prof Li claims his team has boosted the milk’s fat content by a fifth and changed the levels of solids to make it close to the composition of human milk.

But campaigners said the creation of GM cattle was bad for animal welfare. In two experiments by the Chinese in which 42 GM calves were born, just 26 survived. Ten died soon after birth and six died within six months.

However, Professor Ning Li, insists GM milk would be as safe to drink as milk from ordinary dairy cows.

"The milk tastes stronger than normal milk. We aim to commercialize some research in this area in coming three years. For the “human-like milk”, 10 years or maybe more time will be required to finally pour this enhanced milk into the consumer’s cup.” said Ning Li

The move was condemned by campaigners who question its safety. Human milk differs from cows’ milk in several important ways. It contains high quantities of nutrients beneficial to a baby’s growth and immune system. Cows’ milk is much harder for a baby to digest, has less fat and fewer carbohydrates and contains no antibodies that protect against disease.

Patti Rundall, of Baby Milk Action, said: “We need to have rules in place to safeguard human health. There could be incredible risks with these products that we don’t know about. Cows’ milk is never going to be like breast milk. It’s never going to be a living product like breast milk. Breast milk is species specific – there is no element of risk.”

Prof Keith Campbell, a biologist at Nottingham University and a member of the team that cloned Dolly the sheep in 1996, said GM animals were not a threat to health unless scientists deliberately gave them a gene that made their milk toxic.

The modified milk could help boost sales of dairy products in Asia, where more than nine in ten people are lactose intolerant and cannot consume cows’ milk without suffering stomach upsets and cramps.

China’s rules on GM food are more relaxed than those in Europe. The GM milk would not be allowed on sale in the UK unless it was approved by the European Union and passed stringent safety tests.

Organic Farmers & Monsanto Fight It Out In Court

By Theodora Filis

Monsanto, an agriculture giant whose patented genes are in 95% of all soybeans and 80% of all corn grown in the US, has been suing farmers suspected of violating patents – even if done inadvertently. Incidences of farmers being sued because pollen from nearby Monsanto-brand genetically modified crops blew over the fence onto organic fields, has earned Monsanto over $15 million from patent-violation cases.

On March 29, 2011, Public Patent Foundation (PUBPAT) filed suit on behalf of 60 family farmers, seed businesses and organic agricultural organizations against Monsanto Company to challenge the chemical giant's patents on genetically modified seed. The organic plaintiffs were forced to sue preemptively to protect themselves from being accused of patent infringement should they ever become contaminated by Monsanto's genetically modified seed, something Monsanto has done to others in the past. The case, Organic Seed Growers & Trade Association, et al. v. Monsanto, was filed in federal district court in Manhattan.

Plaintiffs in the suit represent a broad range of family farmers, small businesses and organizations from within the organic agriculture community who are increasingly threatened by genetically modified seed contamination despite using their best efforts to avoid it. The plaintiff organizations have over 270,000 members, including thousands of certified organic family farmers.

Once released into the environment, genetically modified seed contaminates and destroys organic seed for the same crop. For example, soon after Monsanto introduced genetically modified seed for canola, organic canola became virtually extinct as a result of contamination. Organic corn, soybeans, cotton, sugar beets and alfalfa now face the same fate, as Monsanto has released genetically modified seed for each of those crops, too.

The plaintiffs in the suit represented by PUBPAT are: Organic Seed Growers and Trade Association; Organic Crop Improvement Association International, Inc.; OCIA Research and Education Inc.; The Cornucopia Institute; Demeter Association, Inc.; Navdanya International; Maine Organic Farmers and Gardeners Association; Northeast Organic Farming Association/Massachusetts Chapter, Inc.; Northeast Organic Farming Association of Vermont; Rural Vermont; Ohio Ecological Food & Farm Association; Southeast Iowa Organic Association; Northern Plains Sustainable Agriculture Society; Mendocino Organic Network; Northeast Organic Dairy Producers Alliance; Canadian Organic Growers; Family Farmer Seed Cooperative; Sustainable Living Systems; Global Organic Alliance; Food Democracy Now!; Family Farm Defenders Inc.; Farm-to-Consumer Legal Defense Fund; FEDCO Seeds Inc.; Adaptive Seeds, LLC; Sow True Seed; Southern Exposure Seed Exchange; Mumm's Sprouting Seeds; Baker Creek Heirloom Seed Co., LLC; Comstock, Ferre & Co., LLC; Seedkeepers, LLC; Siskiyou Seeds; Countryside Organics; Cuatro Puertas; Interlake Forage Seeds Ltd.; Alba Ranch; Wild Plum Farm; Gratitude Gardens; Richard Everett Farm, LLC; Philadelphia Community Farm, Inc; Genesis Farm; Chispas Farms LLC; Kirschenmann Family Farms Inc.; Midheaven Farms; Koskan Farms; California Cloverleaf Farms; North Outback Farm; Taylor Farms, Inc.; Jardin del Alma; Ron Gargasz Organic Farms; Abundant Acres; T & D Willey Farms; Quinella Ranch; Nature's Way Farm Ltd.; Levke and Peter Eggers Farm; Frey Vineyards, Ltd.; Bryce Stephens; Chuck Noble; LaRhea Pepper; Paul Romero; and, Donald Wright Patterson, Jr.

“None of Monsanto’s original promises regarding genetically modified seeds have come true after 15 years of wide adoption by commodity farmers. Rather than increased yields or less chemical usage, farmers are facing more crop diseases, an onslaught of herbicide-resistant superweeds, and increased costs from additional herbicide application. Even more appalling is the fact that Monsanto’s patented genes can blow onto another farmer’s fields and that farmer not only loses significant revenue in the market but is frequently exposed to legal action against them by Monsanto’s team of belligerent lawyers. Crop biotechnology has been a miserable failure economically and biologically and now threatens to undermine the basic freedoms that farmers and consumers have enjoyed in our constitutional democracy.” said, David Murphy, founder and Executive Director of plaintiff Food Democracy Now!

According to the farmers, not only is Monsanto's patent policy out of control, but its patents are harmful. GM alfalfa, a crop whose pollen can travel via wind up to five miles, has been approved by the US government, and GM sugar beets, which can easily cross-contaminate with non-GM sugar beets, were also recently approved. Having protection against Monsanto's lawsuits will be a necessity for these farms in the coming years.

“This case asks whether Monsanto has the right to sue organic farmers for patent infringement if Monsanto's transgenic seed should land on their property,” said Dan Ravicher, PUBPAT's Executive Director and Lecturer of Law at Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law in New York. “It seems quite perverse that an organic farmer contaminated by transgenic seed could be accused of patent infringement, but Monsanto has made such accusations before and is notorious for having sued hundreds of farmers for patent infringement, so we had to act to protect the interests of our clients.”

PUBPAT is asking the judge in this case to declare that if organic farmers are ever contaminated by Monsanto's genetically modified seed, they need not fear also being accused of patent infringement. One reason justifying this result is that Monsanto's patents on genetically modified seed are invalid because they don't meet the “usefulness” requirement of patent law, according to PUBPAT's Ravicher, plaintiffs' lead attorney in the case.

Evidence cited by PUBPAT in its opening filing last week proves that genetically modified seed has negative economic and health effects, while the promised benefits of genetically modified seed – increased production and decreased herbicide use – are false.

“Some say transgenic seed can coexist with organic seed, but history tells us that's not possible, and it's actually in Monsanto's financial interest to eliminate organic seed so that they can have a total monopoly over our food supply,” said Ravicher.  “Monsanto is the same chemical company that previously brought us Agent Orange, DDT, PCB's and other toxins, which they said were safe, but we know are not.  Now Monsanto says transgenic seed is safe, but evidence clearly shows it is not.”

“Monsanto and the biotechnology industry have made great investments in our executive and legislative branches through campaign contributions and powerful lobbyists in Washington” said mark Kastel of the Cornucopia Institute, an advocate for small, organic farms, and one of the plaintiffs. “Family scale farmers desperately need the judiciary branch of our government to balance the power Monsanto is able to wield."


Clear Stream Media:
ClearStreamMedia.blogspot.com