Wednesday, July 27 2011

I Was A Guest Speaker On FLASHPOINT
Discussion point my recent article: New Japan Law "Cleanses" Bad Nuclear News

Listen here: Wednesday, July 27 2011

Sustainability - sus.tain’a.bil’i.ty n.

 ~Paul Hawken, The Ecology of Commerce, 1994 ~

Sustainability is an economic state where the demands placed upon the environment by people and commerce can be met without reducing the capacity of the environment to provide for future generations. It can also be expressed in the simple terms of an economic golden rule for the restorative economy: Leave the world better than you found it, take no more than you need, try not to harm life or the environment, make amends if you do.

 ~Desmond Tutu, Foreword, The Green Bible, 2008~

We must act now and wake up to our moral obligations.  The poor and vulnerable are members of God’s family and are the most severely affected by droughts, high temperatures, the flooding of coastal cities, and more severe and unpredictable weather events resulting from climate change.  We, who should have been responsible stewards preserving our vulnerable, fragile planet home, have been wantonly wasteful through our reckless consumerism, devouring irreplaceable natural resources.  We need to be accountable to God’s family.  Once we start living in a way that is people-friendly to all of God’s family, we will also be environment-friendly.

~Adlai Stevenson (1900-1965), Speech to the UN Economic and Social Council, Geneva, Switzerland, 9 July 1965~

We travel together, passengers on a little space ship, dependent on its vulnerable reserves of air and soil; all committed for our safety to its security and peace; preserved from annihilation only by the care, the work, and I will say, the love we give our fragile craft. We cannot maintain it half fortunate, half miserable, half confident, half despairing, half slave to the ancient enemies of man, half free in a liberation of resources undreamed of until this day. No craft, no crew can travel with such vast contradictions. On their resolution depends the survival of us all.

Organic Trade Association: Wolf In Sheep's Clothing?

By Theodora Filis

In the US and Canada, the Organic Trade Association (OTA) claims there mission is to promote consumer ethics, protect and promote the benefit of organic trade environment, and promote the economy of the public and farmers as a whole. OTA is a member of the International Federation of Organic Agricultural Movements (IFOAM).

“Organic” refers to the way agricultural products are grown and processed. It includes a system of production, processing, distribution and handling to maintain the organic integrity that starts on the farm. Governed by government standards, organic requires that products bearing the organic label are made without the use of toxic and persistent pesticides, synthetic nitrogen fertilizers, antibiotics, synthetic hormones, genetic engineering or other excluded practices, sewage sludge, or irradiation.


Sixty percent of OTA members are micro and small business trade members. The OTA originally went under the name Organic Foods Production Association of North America or OFPANA which was established in1985. Consumers have relied on the OTA for protecting and promoting organic advocacy and standards, instilling confidence in the production of certified organic produce.

The following documentary by Organic Spies tells how the OTA purports to represent organic food companies and farmers, big and small, but is dominated by the organic and so-called "natural" boutique brands of a few big multinational food companies -- whose real stake is in genetically modified foods, industrial agriculture, and factory farms.

This films helps to explains why the OTA has consistently worked to weaken organic standards and has never taken a strong stance against genetically modified crops that threaten to destroy organic seed stocks through contamination.


Providing your family with quality foods that do not contain artificial colors, artificial hormones, and artificial preservatives, or GMOs should not be a guessing game, or a game of Truth or Dare. So, how can you be sure the food you're buying is in fact organic? In order to be labeled organic, foods must fall into one of the following categories:


100% Organic: All ingredients, with the exception of salt and water, must be produced organically. The agency certifying the product must be clearly stated on the label. The USDA organic seal may also be included on the label.


Organic: This label applies to products with at least 95% organic content. The balance of the ingredients must be all natural ingredients not commercially available organically, and must be listed on the USDA's National List of non-organically produced products not available in organic form. The agency certifying the product must be clearly stated on the label. The USDA organic seal may also be included on the label.


Made with organic ingredients: This label applies to products with at least 70% organic content. The balance of the ingredients can be made up of all natural ingredients or items listed on the USDA's National List of non-organically produced products not available in organic form. The label may state "Made from Organic" and list up to three of the organic ingredients. No other organic claims can be made on the package other than the designation of specific organic ingredients in the ingredient statement. The agency certifying the product must be clearly stated on the label. The USDA organic seal may not be included on the label.


Cosmetics: not regulated by any government agency, which means there are no specific federal standards for such products. However, personal-care products are allowed (but not required) to display the US Department of Agriculture’s Organic seal if at least 95 percent of their ingredients were organically produced.Some health and beauty products might reflect the basic ideas of an organic lifestyle. For example, they might contain no artificial ingredients or additives. But the only way to know if a health or beauty item is truly certified organic is to look for the USDA Organic seal.


An international Food Label battle, involving more than 100 countries that comprise the Codex Alimentarius Commission, ended on July 5, 2011 in Geneva when the US "surprisingly" withdrew its objection to listing GMO ingredients on food labels. However, If you think US food packaging is about to provide consumers with full disclosure of genetically modified ingredients… think again. The US ended the stalemate with conditions...


The new Codex agreement allows any country to use food labelling that advises consumers a product contains genetically modified ingredients -- this disclosure is not the law -- it is completely voluntary, and at the discretion of the country.


Since the US is the largest producer of Genetically Modified foods in the world, it remains more than likely consumers in the US will remain in the dark about exactly what they are eating.

New Japan Law "Cleanses" Bad Nuclear News

By Theodora Filis

Friday, July 15, the Ministry of Industry and Trade (METI) – Agency for Natural Resources and Energy, opened a call for bids (tender) regarding the “Nuclear Power Safety Regulation Publicity Project”, for contractors to monitor blogs and tweets posted about nuclear power and radiation.

Saturday, July 23, The Japan Times reported, about 1,500 cows that were fed hay containing radioactive cesium, in excess of the government limit, were found to have been shipped from Fukushima and other prefectures to all of Japan except Okinawa, as of Thursday, July 21. Evidence of rising contamination in and around the plant has tempered optimism, and new reports has consumers raising questions about whether it remains safe to eat beef, chicken and pork.

Since March 11, 2011 it has been reported that YouTube videos containing footage or comments unfavorable to Tokyo Electric Power Company (TEPCO) or the Japanese government have been removed within several hours of their posting. Examples of offending YouTube videos include excerpts of TV shows with controversial comments like footage showing smoke emitted from the nuclear reactors, and an ex-TEPCO employee speaking on his Fukushima experiences. Likewise, Twitter accounts with too much content regarding nuclear power and radiation issues have been disrupted.

On June 17, 2011 the Japanese Parliament passed “The Computer Network Monitoring Law” . Prof. Ibusuki of Seijo Univ. Law Dept. comments that “The Computer Network Monitoring Law will enable the police to monitor anyone’s internet activity without restriction.” Although this appears, on the surface, to be beneficial when targeting cyber-attacks, some Japanese commentators are suggesting that the law is un-Constitutional.

While many radioactive cattle have been discovered long distances from Fukushima, what is more important is where their feed is coming from.

Uncanny Terrain: Yoshizawa’s ranch is 14km downwind from the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant. The government ordered him to kill his 300 cows. Most of his neighbors’ animals are gone, but some have been released and joined his herd. Yoshizawa refuses to kill his cows. He wants them to be studied for the effects of radiation.

Straw found 45 miles from Fukushima is highly contaminated with radioactive cesium, which is an indication that radiation has contaminated large portions of Northern Japan. More than half a million disintegration per second in a kilogram of straw are comparable to Chernobyl levels.


The American Nuclear Regulatory Commission was correct when it told Americans to evacuate beyond 50 miles from Fukushima – the Japanese should have done the same. Ex-Secretariat, Gundersen, of Japan’s Nuclear Safety Commission blames this contamination on “Black Rain”. "Rather than minimize the information the Japanese people receive," Gundersen suggests, "minimizing their radiation exposure.”



“Nuclear Power Safety Regulation Publicity Project” stipulates that, “The Contractor is required to monitor blogs on nuclear power and radiation issues as well as Twitter accounts (monitoring tweets is essential) around the clock, and conduct research and analysis on incorrect and inappropriate information that would lead to false rumors, and to report such internet accounts to the Agency. The “Contractor” is required to keep the Agency well informed on the internet accounts and keywords used in the blogs and Twitter accounts that are posting incorrect and inappropriate information. The Contractor is required to maintain sufficient number of personnel for around-the-clock monitoring. The Contractor is required to submit reports on internet accounts via CDR.” The document, however, does not state that blogs or Twitter accounts, which run afoul of METI’s guidelines, are to be banned or frozen.”


The question is, will METI draw the line at “clarifying” erroneous information, or will it act to clamp down and suppress sources of information that it finds inconvenient?


Suggested Reading & Viewing:

“Nuclear Power Safety Regulation Publicity Project” full content:

http://www.enecho.meti.go.jp/info/tender/tenddata/1106/110624b/110624b.htm Bottom of above webpage has links to pdf 

documents that pertain to the conditions and responsibilities for the Contractors.

Black Rain In Japan! Ex Japanese Nuclear Regulator Blames Radioactive Animal Feed on "Black Rain"
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/renewed-radioactivity-worries-at-japans-damaged-plant/2011/03/28/AFLWpKoB_video.html

Monsanto: Farmers & Consumers Want To Know...

By Theodora Filis

Why are companies like Monsanto and Dupont are so eager to plant GMO seeds, and why are they making it so hard for farmers and consumers to figure it all out?

There are those that say -- if you don’t want problems with Monsanto, don’t buy their GMO seeds -- not so simple. Where do farmers get conventional seeds these days, and how do farmers avoid contamination of their fields from GMO-crops?

Monsanto contaminates the fields, trespasses onto farmland taking samples, and if they find any GMO plants growing there – they sue, claiming they own the crop. It’s another way for the biotech giant to make money.

Perhaps the biggest question these days – why is Monsanto trying to keep everyone from buying, collecting, and saving ORGANIC seeds? 

These and other questioned answered in my new book:


"Solving the GMO Maize" out this Autumn...

GMO Giant Monsanto Under Investigation

By Theodora Filis

Last month the US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) began an investigation into Monsanto's glyphosate herbicide business – The Monsanto Company is the world’s largest genetically modified seed producer. This investigation looks into Monsanto's incentive program for Roundup distributors for 2009 and 2010, which was discontinued last summer as part of Monsanto's larger restructuring of its herbicide business.

The US company provides cash incentives to distributors to buy Roundup glyphosate, the world’s leading herbicide, and Roundup Ready seeds. Its most recent program, introduced last year, offered up to $20 per acre. Federal regulators are now investigating Monsanto's incentive program for distributors who sell the company's herbicide Roundup to farmers.

Hugh Grant, Monsanto's Chairman, President and CEO, said the investigation is not related to Monsanto's genetically modified (GMO) business. “We take this seriously,” said Grant. “Out of respect for the SEC and their processes, there’s really not a great deal I can say at the moment. It’s early days. We’re just starting document production and we’re co-operating to our full ability.”

Last year, the Justice Department formally requested information on Monsanto's herbicide-tolerant soybean seed business as part of an investigation into anti competitive practices. The Justice Department’s antitrust division “is investigating the possibility of anti competitive practices in the seed industry,” said Gina Talamona, department spokeswoman.

“Monsanto will not block seed makers from creating generic versions of any of its gene-modified seeds as they lose patent protection”, Grant, said. “Starting in 2015, farmers can replant Roundup Ready soybeans saved from the last year’s harvest, and rival seed makers can create their own Roundup-tolerant seeds.”

Monsanto’s herbicide division was once a cash cow, but has since collapsed in the face of low-cost competition from China. Monsanto has been fighting to stabilize Round­up revenues, and cash incentives have played a big role in re-establishing the brand among farmers.

Roundup Ready soybeans are engineered to withstand Monsanto’s Roundup, the world’s most popular weed-killer. Contracts protect Monsanto’s patents in part by prohibiting farmers from planting saved seeds.

The Justice Department made informal inquiries last year into claims from the DuPont Company, the second-biggest seed company, that Monsanto unfairly used genetic licenses to dominate the engineered seed market – about 93 percent of soybean plantings last year contained Monsanto’s Roundup Ready trait.

Last month, DuPont said it was indefinitely delaying the commercial launch of the genetically-modified soybean seed at the center of the long-running court battle with Monsanto. The seed, the launch of which has been delayed before, is controversial because DuPont is using a Monsanto gene in the soybean plant against the wishes of Monsanto.

DuPont's Pioneer unit said the soybean plant is in limbo because Monsanto refuses to give foreign regulators access to data necessary for the genetically modified crop to win import approvals.

The court fight, which is still on-going, attracted the attention of the Obama administration's Justice Department, which in January 2010 opened a formal antitrust investigation into Monsanto's handling of the most widely planted genetically modified crop in the US, herbicide-tolerant soybeans.

DuPont's Optimum GAT seeds are genetically modified to grow into soybean plants able to survive exposure to glyphosate-based weedkiller as well as another herbicide called acetolate synthase.

DuPont advertisied Optimum GAT to farmers as an alternative to them buying seeds equipped with Monsanto's gene for surviving glyphosate, the active ingredient in Monsanto's Roundup weedkiller. But, Pioneer scientists ended up loading Monsanto's Roundup Ready gene with their own glyphosate-tolerate gene.

While biotech giants fight it out for an even larger slice of the frankenfood pie, the world's population is fighting to understand what exactly they're so eager to force feed us, and why are they making it so hard for consumers to figure it out.

More than forty countries have adopted labelling regulations for GM food, but one of the major differences in regulations among countries with mandatory labelling depends on whether the regulation targets the presence of GM in the finished product or on GM technology as a production process. Where as, voluntary labelling has resulted, so far, in an increasing number of non-GM labeled products available as alternatives to GM products, giving consumers a choice between products that may contain approved GM products and those that have no GM ingredients.

There is no international agreement, standard, or guideline on GM food labeling, and strict mandatory labeling systems adopted by importers could be found in violation of rules under the World Trade Organization (WTO).

Starting to feel like you have no choice in the matter? 

New Age Food: Self Regulating GMOs

By Theodora Filis

In the US, Genetically Modified Organisims (GMOs) fall under regulatory jurisdiction of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), and the Environmental Protection Association (EPA). Now, more than ever, environmentalists are complaining that policies and regulations are insufficient and poorly organized. Many worry corporate influence over policy has led to a dangerous level of "self-regulation" by biotech companies like Monsanto, Syngenta and Scotts.

Mandatory labeling of GMOs and biotech companies allowed to self-regulate are causing heated debates. Debates that have caused a significant increase in the amount of valuable information regarding GMOs, but has not helped to stop the planting or the “gene-flow” of GMO seeds world-wide.

Gene-flow, the process by which a gene will move through wind-blown pollen and work its way into non-modified varieties, has already been well-established for GMO corn, GMO alfalfa, and other modified crops.

Already on the verge of regulatory collapse, the USDA “surprised” everyone last week with a press release titled: "USDA Responds to Regulation Requests Regarding Kentucky Bluegrass," the USDA announced their decision to deregulate a "Roundup Ready" strain of Kentucky bluegrass. GMO Kentucky Bluegrass seed was engineered to withstand glyphosate, Monsanto's widely used herbicide, known as Roundup. Allowing, Scotts Miracle Gro, the maker of this novel grass seed, to plant and sell without restrictions.

Even more surprising than the press release was a letter to Scotts Miracle-Gro, by USDA Secretary, Tom Vilsak, as an addendum to the agency's response to Scott's GMO bluegrass petition. In Vilsack's letter, dated July 1, he acknowledges concerns that GMO bluegrass will contaminate non-GMO bluegrass, and acknowledges that the Roundup Ready gene will move through wind-blown pollen and work its way into non-GMO varieties.

“The USDA recognizes that if this GE variety were to be commercially released, producers wishing to grow non-GE Kentucky bluegrass will likely have concerns related to gene flow between the GE variety and non-GE Kentucky bluegrass. Exporters of Kentucky bluegrass seed, growers of non-GE Kentucky bluegrass seed, and those involved in the use of non-GE Kentucky bluegrass in pastures will likely have concerns about the loss of their ability to meet contractual obligations.” said Vilsack

GMO Kentucky bluegrass has already shown up in organic cow pastures and beef. Organic farmers, due to gene-flow, now face the risk of their animals eating from fields of GMO crops – jeopardizing their organic status.

The National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA) requires that the USDA conduct an environmental impact study for all the crops it deregulates. But to deregulate a crop, the agency has to regulate it first.

So, how did the USDA get away with deregulating GMO bluegrass, without having to regulate it first?

I think USDA used, what is referred to as a “quick kick” in American football. GMO Crops that must be regulated fall under "regulatory status" – "plant pest" status and "noxious weed" status. The USDA conveniently placed GMO bluegrass into neither of those categories, but instead placed bluegrass under the broad variety of “novel crops” that do not need to be regulated before deregulating.

Huh? Confused? Good, then it worked. Touchdown for the biotech industry!

Is Japan's Meltdown Just A Bump In The Road?

By Theodora Filis

Will Japan’s nuclear crisis prompt other countries to suspend, scale back, or even quit nuclear power? Three Mile Island and Chernobyl stopped North America and Europe in their tracks. Could Fukushima do the same in Asia?

Not likely, not in Asia, say energy experts – China, India, Korea and Russia are building the vast majority of the world’s new nuclear reactors – some plans may be delayed, but they won’t be scrapped. “Unless Fukushima blows up, I doubt it will be significant enough to put them off,” says Malcolm Keay, Senior Research Fellow at the Oxford Institute for Energy Studies. “Political opposition and the financial costs of nuclear are less than in OECD countries.”

Europe and North America feel differently, and safety concerns could push aging reactors into early retirement. Escalating costs associated with higher safety standards and anti-nuclear opposition could scare investors away from nuclear power. The UK gets nearly one half of its energy from nuclear power, Germany over one quarter, the United States one fifth. How will these countries keep the lights on? And what happens if old nuclear reactors are not renovated or replaced, what will fill the energy gaps left behind?

Natural gas is now the most likely substitute for nuclear energy say many analysts with new discoveries pointing to it being cheaper, readily available, fitting with existing infrastructure, and is “cleaner” than coal or oil. UK bank HSBC and French bank Societe Generale (SocGen) predicted natural gas to be the winner should voters and governments reject nuclear power. However, not all countries are like Japan, with natural gas infrastructure terminals, pipelines, and gas refineries. Those countries looking to get in on the “gas boom” will have to invest a lot of money, because it's not just a matter of switching off nuclear and switching on gas.

Traders told Reuters in April, that Germany temporarily shut down seven nuclear reactors in response to Fukushima, but has no natural gas terminals and limited gas infrastructure – so its utilities filled three quarters of the energy gap with coal. Coal is cheaper than gas and, when utility company profits are at stake, they may be tempted to use it. Other nuclear countries that rely heavily on coal are the United States, Japan, China and India. Coal, gas and oil would benefit from a nuclear phaseout. According to the Economist magazine,this scenario would not benefit the planet, adding about 2 billion tons of CO2 to the 9 billion tons emitted by electricity generators in 2009.

There is one other thought – nuclear’s loss becomes renewable's gain if governments and investors get serious about low-carbon energy. Solar power company stocks soared immediately after the Fukushima disaster. Unfortunately, wind and solar plants can not fill the energy gap entirely. The 2011 ‘Battle of the Grids’ report from environmental campaigners Greenpeace argues that Europe could get nearly 70 percent of its energy from renewables by 2030, and almost 100 percent by 2050.

Not all governments will react as negatively as Germany toward nuclear power, nor will they be as pro-nuclear as France. China, India, Russia and the United States are the key players deciding whether the world’s energy system becomes more or less atomic, and whether it becomes greener or gassier.

Months Of Protests Pay Off, France Becomes 1st Country To Ban Fracking

By Theodora Filis

This week, France, believed to have some of the biggest natural gas reserves in Europe, has become the first country in the world to put an outright ban on Hydraulic Fracturing (fracking).

France's bill to ban fracking, but not shale gas exploration itself, was drafted by the country's ruling UMP party after months of protests by environmental activists concerned that the process contaminates drinking water. Earlier this year, France's government granted energy giants exploration permits for work without public consultation, but announced a temporary freeze on shale gas exploration in February.

A report by Scientific American said, the French vote was split along party lines, but the opposition largely came from the Socialist Party, which did not think the ban went far enough because it contains loopholes that allow the exploitation of oil shale deposits by other means.

France's ban on fracking came on the heels of reports that the US state of New York was about to lift its de facto moratorium on fracking, which has had an informal ban on the process since 2008. In a surprising move, New York is soon expected to lift the ban in most places. New York’s new rules will ban the practice in state parks and watershed areas, but otherwise allow it. Andrew Cuomo’s office is thought to be on board with the plan, but has not said so publicly.

Hydraulic Fracturing, involves injecting water and sand mixed with a cocktail of poisonous chemicals, dangerous to human health and polluting drinking water, deep into underground oil shale deposits, to force out hidden reserves of natural gas that cannot be extracted any other way. Pioneered in the early years of the twenty-first century by companies like Halliburton, fracking has dramatially increased estimates of the amount of natural gas that could be recovered for fuel in the US and other countries throughout the world.

Most energy companies in the US are not required to disclose what chemicals they use while fracking, and widely use compounds include the carcinogen benzene, and more than sixty other chemicals that cause cancer or other serious health problems. Fracking also frees underground deposits of methane gas that can seep groundwater or escape into the air. In some parts of the US where fracking is widespread, water from an indoor tap can actually become flammable due to methane released by nearby fracking projects. The image of water from a faucet being lit on fire with a match has become a rallying point for environmentalists concerned with the dangers of fracking.

The state of New Jersey has implemented the first statewide legislative ban on fracking, while other states and local governments are now looking to stronger regulations to control the damage from natural gas extraction. In Texas, companies have finally been required to publicly disclose a list of chemicals they use during the fracking process, making it easier for environmental groups and nearby communities to judge the risk to local water supplies.

From South Africa to Canada, countries with large natural gas deposits are under pressure from the gas industry to allow fracking to move forward. Hopefully, France's move to ban fracking will reverberate throughout the world, helping other countries to take heed of the impact facking has on human health and the environment.