Keystone Protesters Implore Obama To Put Environmental Safety & Public Interest First

By Theodora Filis

At 11:00 am on Aug. 20, 2011, 65 people walked single file across Pennsylvania Avenue to the White House gate and turned their backs to it, facing Lafayette Park, peacefully protesting the construction of the Keystone XL pipeline.

 In a defiant act of civil disobedience, protestors staged a sit-in at the White House to implore Obama to stop the Keystone XL pipeline from being constructed. The decision to grant a trans-boundary pipeline permit is an executive decision, not a legislative one, which means the president needs neither to negotiate with, nor consult, Congress in order to take action. "It is Obama alone with the ball at the foul line," said environmental author and activist Bill McKibben, in a brief talk before the sit-in, using a basketball metaphor he repeated frequently to reporters in the days leading up to his arrest. "Will he take the 20-foot jump shot, or will he pass?"

Filed by TransCanada Keystone Pipeline, LP (Keystone) in 2008, the proposed project asks the US State Department for a Presidential Permit to build and operate the Keystone Pipeline consisting of 1,700 mile crude oil pipeline and related facilities. The pipeline would be used to transport Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin crude oil from an oil supply hub in Alberta, Canada to delivery points in Oklahoma and Texas, and US crude oil to those same delivery points. The proposed project could transport up to 830,000 barrels per day and is estimated to cost $7 billion US dollars. If permitted, it would being operation in 2013, with the actual date dependent on the necessary permits, approvals and authorizations.

A US State Department report said the pipeline poses no major risk, and no evidence that the pipeline would significantly affect the six US states it would pass through. However, opponents say it's an environmental disaster waiting to happen, pointing to several recent pipeline spills as proof.


Susan Casey-Lefkowitz, National Resource Defense Council, said the environmental and safety review of the proposed project is missing critical elements, including an in-depth review of pipeline safety issues, added pollution in refinery communities and a special assessment of the impact on wildlife. "Once again, the State Department has failed to do its homework, and they’re leaving the American public to suffer the consequences," she said. “It is utterly beyond me how the administration can claim the pipeline will have 'no significant impacts' if they haven’t bothered to do in-depth studies around the issues of contention. The public has made their concerns clear and the administration seems to have ignored them. If permitted, the proposed Keystone XL tar sands pipeline will be a dirty legacy that will haunt [the Obama administration] for years to come."


Casey-Lefkowitz said there is no evidence of the in-depth studies required for such a project. "Despite assurances, this review seems to be far from a 'thorough and objective' assessment of critical health and safety issues that landowners and community members will be dealing with should this project be built," she said.


"An administration committed to fighting climate change and building a clean energy economy in the United States must be more stringent in evaluating the vast impacts of this dirty and unnecessary project." She urged the US government to proceed with public meeting and further assessments before determining whether to proceed. "Keystone XL is rife with issues that exacerbate climate change and environmental injustices — two things that were supposed to be a focus for the administration, but have been glossed over," Casey-Lefkowitz said. "Especially given that there is no need for this pipeline in the United States, it is not worth the many environmental and safety risks."


With the approval completed, the US government now has 90 days to decide if the project, which would stretch from Alberta to the US Gulf Coast, is in the public interest.

Writing the Wrongs of Nina V. Fedoroff's NY Times Op-ed

By Theodora Filis

On August 18, 2011 the New York Times posted an article by Nina V. Fedoroff in their op-ed section. The article was titled “Engineering Food for All” and another version of this op-ed appeared in print on August 19, 2011, on page A23, of the New York edition with the same headline.

In her article, Fedoroff, uses three main points to secure her “argument” in favor of biotechnology, and genetic modification; solving world hunger and the population growth; genetically modified crops that contain an “extra” gene that is good for the environment; and how the US government needs to “stop regulating genetic modifications for which there is no scientifically credible evidence of harm”.

Let me get right into it without any further mention of Fedoroff's attempt at persuading the readers of the NY Times that genetically modified “Frankenfoods” will feed the world and save the US from financial ruin.

Monsanto and the biotech industry are lying when it advertises that biotechnology can resolve the world's food crisis. It has been documented, over and over, that transgenics do not increase yields. Transgenic corn strains, for example, were not designed to increase yield. The vast majority of transgenic crops are designed to resist the application of herbicides manufactured by Monsanto – creating more dependency on the need to buy seeds and the contamination of native varieties. Also damaging the environment, the economy and human health.

On the other hand, annual corn harvests could be doubled if agricultural policy were reformed to support small farmers and to encourage cultivation of more acres where there is sufficient water. Raising production, with farmers saving seed and not required to pay royalties to Monsanto. Native species and varieties are adapted to local soils and climates.

Monsanto denies the risk of transgenic contamination of native species, despite evidence that the coexistence of transgenics and biodiversity is impossible.

Based on reports by the FAO (Food and Agricultural Organization) and UNESCO (United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization), transgenics not only do not increase yields, they have the negative impacts of raising agrochemical levels and destroying the soil. These studies also show few or no benefits to poor farmers or consumers.

Since 1996 Americans have been eating genetically modified (GM) ingredients in most processed foods. GM plants, such as soybean, corn, cottonseed, and canola, have had foreign genes forced into their DNA. The inserted genes come from species such as bacteria and viruses, which have never been in the human food supply.

The American Academy of Environmental Medicine states, “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.

Monsanto, and the biotech industry, try very hard to convenience consumers that it is sound business practice to force farmers to buy a fresh supply of seeds each year. Collecting and replanting seeds is a crucial part of the agricultural cycle. However, because of a new US patent, there is now a new technology to prevent “unauthorized seed-saving” by farmers.

Supporters of what is being dubbed as terminator, or suicide, technology claim it severs to protect corporations from “unscrupulous” farmers. Control of seed germination helps prevent growers from pirating their technology. If crops remain fertile, there is a chance that farmers could use any saved transgenic seed from a previous season – resulting in fewer profits for Monsanto.

Under the Clinton Administration funding for research was increased to further study the potential risks of genetically engineered crops to both consumers and the environment. The FDA subsequently announced that that it would strengthen its review of bioengineered foods and write guidelines for companies that wanted to label their products as free of genetically modified foods. The FDA also announced plans to reassure consumers about the safety of genetically modified foods by requiring developers to publish research and safety data on the internet. The FDA also wanted to develop standardized tests to detect tiny amounts of genetically altered corns, soybeans and other grains in order to assist food processing firms which wanted to use only foods from non-genetically modified seeds.

“Responding to consumer concerns, a number of U.S. companies including Frito-Lay, McDonalds, Gerber and McCain Foods (the world's largest maker of French Fries), announced that they would not purchase any foods made with genetically altered seeds. However, there was little evidence of a broad consumer backlash against genetically modified foods or of increased public pressure for stricter regulations. In fact, in just two years, between 1996 and 1998, crop acreage using genetically modified seeds had increased fifteen fold in the United States: a third of the American corn and cotton crop and more than half of the soybean crop is now grown from genetically modified seeds - representing among the most rapid adoptions of a new technology in the history of agriculture. By late 1999, it is estimated that approximately 60 percent of grocery-store food in the United States was grown from genetically modified seeds. Yet so rapid was their introduction that even as an increasing number of food products from biotechnology were being introduced into the American market beginning in the mid 1990s, consumer awareness of biotechnology remained low. Indeed as late as August 1999, only 33 percent of Americans were aware that genetically modified foods were being sold in supermarkets, while less than 3% were aware that soybeans were genetically engineered.” – “Apples and Oranges: Comparing the Regulation of Genetically Modified Food in Europe and the United States”

In the US, GMOs fall under regulatory jurisdiction of the FDA, the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), and the Environmental Protection Association (EPA). 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.

Challenges surrounding GM foods and crops focus on human and environmental safety, labeling and consumer choice, intellectual property rights, ethics, food security, poverty reduction, and environmental conservation.

This author challenges Ms. Fedoroff, Monsanto and the biotech industry to refute the facts of this article.

Shell Holds Back Information On North Sea Oil Spill

By Theodora Filis

Royal Dutch Shell announced Monday, August 15, that nearly 54,600 gallons of oil have spilled into the North Sea from an oil rig off Scotland’s eastern coast. The spill occurred at the Gannet Alpha oil rig, and is operated by Shell and co-owned by both Shell and Esso, a subsidiary of US oil firm Exxon Mobil. The technical director of Shell’s European exploration and production activities, Glen Cayley, called the spill “significant.” However, Cayley believes it is unlikely that the spill will reach shore.

The British government backs Shell’s predictions that the oil will not spread to land. In a weekend statement Shell admitted the spill covered an area 19 miles wide by 2.7 miles long. The main leak, found  last Wednesday, is under control, but on Tuesday Shell revealed there is a second leak from a relief valve on Gannet Alpha platform, 112 miles off the coast of Aberdeen. The spill comes weeks after the release of a United Nations report detailing decades of oil pollution in Nigeria, where Shell has operated since the 1950s. The company is also in the process of applying for US federal permits to explore for oil offshore Alaska. The company said it had contained the spill by shutting in the well, but did not say how much oil remains in the pipeline.

Although it pales in comparison to the 206 million gallons of crude oil that gushed into the Gulf of Mexico after the catastrophic BP oil spill, the British government said the leak was substantial for the UK’s continental shelf. Although the North Sea is small in comparison to other oceans, it contains a  highly sensitive ecosystem -- the 2010 Gulf oil spill has proven that threats to marine life persist even when oil is no longer visible on the surface.

Scottish Environment Secretary, Richard Lochhead, said he didn't expect contaminated fish to enter the food chain, but that “a research vessel will, in the coming days, take fish, seawater and sediment samples”. Lochhead called on Shell to be "as open and transparent as possible."

According to the Wildlife Trusts’ North Sea Project, "the North Sea supports over 230 species of fish, an exciting variety of marine mammals and thousands of seabirds. The North Sea is also one of the world’s busiest seas and is home to a range of human activity which could potentially threaten marine species." UK Department of Energy and Climate Change said that while it doesn't expect oil to reach land, it would hold Shell "responsible for any costs associated with the government response to the spill.” The Scottish government said it was working with Shell to monitor the spill and warn local fishing boats about contaminated areas.

Patrick Harvie, deputy leader for the Green Party in Scotland, said “It is too early to tell how serious this spill is, but it is imperative that Shell reacts quickly and efficiently.“

Governments Trample Each Other In Their Haste To Promote GM Maize

By Theodora Filis

Genetically modified (GM) maize is a crop governments and local agencies love to promote as it promises the highest productivity increases. Seed and bio-tech companies, like Monsanto, DuPont, Syngenta and Dow, profit greatly as farmers switch to GM seeds, their demand for pesticides and fertilizers shoot up – ensuring two markets for these companies – herbicides and seeds.

As the food crisis looms, the real danger for the nourishment, health and culture of the world is whether to choose Monsanto's agenda over strengthening the world's agriculture. Consumer beware: Cultivation of GMOs will accelerate the loss of the world's food sovereignty and contaminate vital native strains of corn.

Today, governments are trampling each other in their haste to get into large-scale public private partnerships (PPPs), as public pressure builds to promote GM maize in the name of food security. (PPPs involve a contract between a public sector authority and a private party, in which the private party provides a public service or project and assumes substantial financial, technical and operational risk in the project.) However, only 25 percent of GM maize is consumed as food; the rest goes into poultry feed, animal feed, and industrial use, such as ethanol.


The terms genetically-modified (GM) or genetically-engineered (GE) foods and genetically-modified organisms (GMOs) refer to crop plants created for human or animal consumption using the latest molecular biology techniques. These techniques of modern genetics have made possible the direct manipulation of the genetic makeup of organisms. Combining genes from different organisms is known as recombinant DNA technology, and the resulting organism is said to be "genetically modified," "genetically engineered," or "transgenic."


New techniques that insert foreign genetic material, like bacterial genes to produce insecticide in a corn plant, have raised health and environmental concerns. Proponents argue that GM crops can feed the world. And given ever increasing demands for food, animal feed, fiber and now biofuels, the world needs all the help it can get. Unfortunately, GM corn and soybeans won't help.


A study from the Union of Concerned Scientists shows GM crops do not produce larger harvests. Crop yield increases in recent years have almost entirely been due to improved farming or traditional plant breeding, despite more than 3,000 field trials of GM crops. GM corn can tolerate high doses of weed-killer, and the Biotechnology Industry Organization argues that GM crops can boost yields in developing countries where there are limited resources for pesticides.


Monsanto has been dening the risk of transgenic contamination of native species, despite evidence that the coexistence of transgenic and biodiversity is impossible. Hiding the truth has been an integral part of Monsanto’s corporate strategies throughout its history, as the company seeks to protect profits at the expense of human health and the environment.


Studies by the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) and UNESCO affirms transgenics does not increase yields, and have negative impacts of raising agrochemical levels and destroying the soil. These studies also found few or no benefits to poor farmers and consumers. Additionally, GM crops contribute to the climate crisis because they reinforce an oil-dependent agricultural model. Local and small scale farmer organizations and scientists propose an alternative sustainable model, based on conservation of biodiversity, nutrient recycling, crop synergy, conservation of soil and strategic resources (such as water), and incorporating new bio-technologies compatible with sustainable systems.


Traditional plant breeding boosts crop yields better than genetic modification. Guess those old farmers were on to something, eh?

ChemTrail Droppings: Toxic Metals and Chemicals Destroying Our “Health”

By Theodora Filis

The existence of an unusual type of aerial activity, generally termed Chemtrails, has been reported for many years now. While it is scientifically accepted that normal contrails may persist for hours and spread, Chemtrails are widely debated, said to differ in their configuration from contrails, and disperse toxic metals and chemicals into our air.

Chemtrail residue has been analyzed in several locations throughout the world, and aluminum particulates are in every analysis. As the particulate clouds from these chemtrails settle, they become part of what we breathe into our lungs – the most efficient gateway for heavy metal toxicity.

Today we are all exposed to more than 100,000 chemicals regularly. Most chemicals have never been tested for human safety, and almost nothing has been done to reduce human exposure to these hazardous chemicals. In fact, over the past decade, the Bush administration dismantled many environmental laws that were in existence for 30 years.

Since the 1940's the US military has been spraying chemical and biological weapons in open air testing over civilian populations in what they call “vulnerability tests”. (The military has admitted to this practice on many occasions and documentation from the government is available.)

Health hazards of heavy metals include auto-immune diseases and many neurological disorders. More than ever, heavy metals are being linked to many forms of cancer. Aerosol spraying of heavy metals from high flying aircraft that most consider benign contrails are now known to be chemtrails loaded with aluminum and barium.

Today, reports of cardiac deaths and upper respiratory illnesses (asthma, chronic bronchitis, lung cancer, and often multiple chronic illnesses) are on the rise. The significant increase in heart disease and various upper respiratory illnesses has been linked to a vast increase in “particulate matter” in our air.

Common Commercial Carcinogens are:

Aluminium: a carcinogenic element of commercial antiperspirants and under arm deodorants – can also be inhaled.

Cadmium: a straightforward link to lung and other cancers.

Mercury: the heavy metal most dangerous for human health, has been "officially" recognized as "possibly carcinogenic". However, various lab animal studies and epidemiological human surveys indicate that it should be considered carcinogenic.

Beryllium, Nickel, Radium, Arsenic, and Chromium: heavy metals officially recognized as carcinogenic. Arsenic is often found in well waters. The other toxins threaten individuals within specific industries using those metals. None of these heavy metals are as prevalent or pose the carcinogenic threats to the general population as much as cadmium, aluminum, and mercury.

The EPA considers mercury to be the most toxic heavy metal, worse than lead, and a disposal waste hazard. Yet up to forty million tons of mercury are used annually to prepare amalgams (an alloy of mercury with another metal used especially in making tooth cements ) worldwide. Other sources of mercury poisoning are vaccines, coal burning energy plants, incinerators, and high fructose corn syrup (HFCS). Chewing or drinking HFCS with mercury amalgams while getting flu shots puts you in “triple jeopardy”.

Naomi Klein writes in her book The Shock Doctrine – “We have so many major crises, one after another, that it is hard just to keep up with one’s daily routine – let alone have time to read and consider the toxicological health ramifications of massive amounts of thousands of heavy metals and chemicals that have poisoned our entire food chain and, thus, our own supposed “health.” We are at the very top of this wrecked food chain.”

Elevated stress levels created by the world's financial crisis, rising unemployment, and people being forced to foreclose on their homes, supersedes news of a degraded, collapsing environment and serious health problems.

Is corporate-controlled news affecting our very survival?