How the U.S. manages to waste $165 billion in food each year

By Brad Plumer , Updated: August 22, 2012

Each year, about 40 percent of all food in the United States goes uneaten. It’s just tossed out or left to rot. And that’s a fairly large waste of resources. All that freshwater and land, all that fertilizer and energy — for nothing. By one recent estimate, Americans are squandering the equivalent of $165 billion each year by rubbishing so much food.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/wp/2012/08/22/how-food-actually-gets-wasted-in-the-united-states/?print=1

When we consider the rogue's gallery of devilish, over-sized, greedy and disproportionately powerful corporations, we generally come up with outfits like Microsoft, Bechtel, AIG, Halliburton, Goldman-Sachs, Exxon-Mobil and the United States Senate. Yet somehow, Monsanto, arguably the most devilish, over-sized, greedy and disproportionately powerful corporation in the world has been able to more or less skulk between the raindrops -- only a household name in households where documentaries like Food Inc. are regarded as light Friday evening entertainment. My house, for example. But for the most part, if you were to ask an average American for their list of sinister corporations, Monsanto probably wouldn't make the cut.

It should.

Founded by Missouri pharmacist John Francis Queeny in 1901, Monsanto is literally everywhere. Just about every non-organic food product available to consumers has some sort of connection with Monsanto.

Anyone who can read a label knows that corn, soy and cotton can be found in just about every American food product. Upwards of 90% of all corn, soybeans and cotton are grown from genetically engineered seeds, also known as genetically modified organisms (GMOs). These genetically enhanced products appear in around 70% of all American processed food products. And Monsanto controls 90% of all genetically engineered seeds. In other words, Monsanto controls -- and owns patents on -- most of the American food supply.

http://www.dailyfinance.com/2010/02/04/monsanto-the-evil-corporation-in-your-refrigerator/

As the battle to get genetically engineered foods (or GMOs) labeled in California — a battle that could very well have an impact on labeling nationwide — heats up, Big Food and Big Ag are working in concert to push back to the tune of $25 million. The fight centers around Proposition 37, the ballot initiative from the Right to Know Campaign that will go to vote in November.

If it passes, the result would be no small change. As Mother Jones’ Tom Philpott wrote recently:

Since GM corn, soy, sugar beets, and cotton (the oil part) are processed into sweeteners, fats, and other additives that suffuse the US food system, the initiative would require the labeling of something like 80 percent of all non-organic processed food sold in supermarkets.

As you can see in the chart below, The “Big 6” pesticide makers (BASF, Bayer, Dow, Dupont, Monsanto, and Syngenta) are putting up big money — especially Monsanto and Dupont (full name E. I. Dupont de Nemours). That’s because all of the Big 6 either produce GMO seeds themselves, or pesticides that work in concert with the seeds, so they have the biggest vested interest in seeing GMO proliferation fly under the radar of most Americans.

The names behind processed foods are also getting in on the fight — like PepsiCo, whose many sub-brands sell many foods and beverages that contain GMO high-fructose corn syrup, soy lecithin, etc. So are the companies behind quite a few “health food brands” — from Kashi to Gardenburger to Silk. In fact, the Cornucopia Institute just released a handy shopping guide to help eaters keep their dollars from going to help oppose Prop 37.

Where is the money going, exactly? Many of these companies are paying the same consultants who worked for the tobacco industry to create “astroturf,” or fake grassroots groups that will do their best to make it look like there’s a big crowd of citizens who think labeling is a bad idea. And they’ll undoubtedly convince many voters. This Reuters article that ran yesterday predicts a close battle.

Here’s a breakdown of the 20 largest donors as of Wednesday, Aug. 15:

A year five student who made a discovery about a new kind of link between protein and eggs was among those honoured at last night's Eureka Prize ceremony for excellence in science.

Inspiration can come from unexpected places, and for Ignatius Fox it came when his chickens suddenly laid bigger eggs after breaking into the worm farm.

"So we thought that the worms would give protein to them so we tried giving protein to give the big eggs and it worked," Ignatius said.

The student, from Oyster Bay Public School in Sydney's south, received the top honour at the awards in Sydney for a short science film made by a primary school student.

Dr Karl Kruszelnicki, who presented the award, thinks the student's insight puts him ahead of many adults.

"So we've got an 11-year-old person who's made an observation, accidental observation, then formed a hypothesis and then tested it out as opposed to certain radio jocks who'll say, gee, it was warm now and it's colder tonight, therefore there's no such thing as global warming," he said.

Global warming did not play much of a role in the awards but another, lesser-known global issue was front and centre.

Dr Dana Cordell was part of a team that won an award for research into sustaining the dwindling global supply of phosphorus, which is an essential ingredient in fertiliser.

"The good news is we can avert a crisis," Dr Cordell said.

"We will need to recover phosphorus from all organic waste and that includes food waste, human excreta, manure, crop waste.

"At the same time we'll also need to dramatically increase the efficiency of our current food systems."

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-08-29/eureka-moment-for-fox-in-the-henhouse/4229392

HEALTHBEAT: Is organic healthier? Study says not so much, but it’s key reason consumers buyBy Associated Press, Published: September 4

WASHINGTON — Patient after patient asked: Is eating organic food, which costs more, really better for me?

Unsure, Stanford University doctors dug through reams of research to find out — and concluded there’s little evidence that going organic is much healthier, citing only a few differences involving pesticides and antibiotics.

Eating organic fruits and vegetables can lower exposure to pesticides, including for children — but the amount measured from conventionally grown produce was within safety limits, the researchers reported Monday.

Nor did the organic foods prove more nutritious.

“I was absolutely surprised,” said Dr. Dena Bravata, a senior research affiliate at Stanford and long-time internist who began the analysis because so many of her patients asked if they should switch.

“There are many reasons why someone might choose organic foods over conventional foods,” from environmental concerns to taste preferences, Bravata stressed. But when it comes to individual health, “there isn’t much difference.”

Her team did find a notable difference with antibiotic-resistant germs, a public health concern because they are harder to treat if they cause food poisoning.

Specialists long have said that organic or not, the chances of bacterial contamination of food are the same, and Monday’s analysis agreed. But when bacteria did lurk in chicken or pork, germs in the non-organic meats had a 33 percent higher risk of being resistant to multiple antibiotics, the researchers reported Monday in the journal Annals of Internal Medicine.

That finding comes amid debate over feeding animals antibiotics, not because they’re sick but to fatten them up. Farmers say it’s necessary to meet demand for cheap meat. Public health advocates say it’s one contributor to the nation’s growing problem with increasingly hard-to-treat germs. Caroline Smith DeWaal, food safety director at the Center for Science in the Public Interest, counted 24 outbreaks linked to multidrug-resistant germs in food between 2000 and 2010.

The government has begun steps to curb the nonmedical use of antibiotics on the farm.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/healthbeat-is-organic-healthier-study-says-not-so-much-but-its-key-reason-consumers-buy/2012/09/04/90613076-f660-11e1-a93b-7185e3f88849_print.html

The difference between organic and non organic is far more than the "nutritional value" which can appear to be the same... For example there is also "taste" and what I call "elegance"... Elegance is devised as an organically grown produce is often less "gross"  than the intensely grown farm produce — which often is tougher and tasteless, through force feeding and liberal usage of pesticides and herbicides. As well the organic food produce does not kill insects and as such respects the natural processes in which bees act as a pollinator for example.  The problem posed by the antibiotics are numerous and we've only seen the tip of the iceberg so to speak... In "organically" grown food, there is no boosters, nor is there antibiotics that can throw the future of medicine at risk...

The US supreme court has ruled unanimously that natural human genes cannot be patented, a decision that scientists and civil rights campaigners said removed a major barrier to patient care and medical innovation.

The court on Thursday held that human DNA was a "product of nature", a basic tool of scientific and technological work, thereby placing it beyond the domain of patent protection. It struck down patents held by Myriad Genetics Inc, a Utah company, on two genes linked to a higher risk of breast and ovarian cancer.

But it also said that synthetic genetic material could be patented, in a mixed ruling for the biotechnology industry, which has argued that patents are necessary to recoup the billions of dollars it spends on research.

Myriad carries out tests for BRCA genes, recently brought into the public eye when actor Angelina Jolie revealed she had a double mastectomy after learning she tested positive for one of the genes.

The ruling represents a major shift in the law, overturning three decades of patent awards by the US government and could have a profound effect on the biotechnology and drug industry.

Justice Clarence Thomas ruled that Myriad's assertion that the DNA it isolated from the human body for its tests were patentable had to be dismissed because it violated patent rules. The court said that laws of nature, natural phenomena and abstract ideas lay outside patent protection.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/law/2013/jun/13/supreme-court-genes-patent-dna

See toon at top...

The Undercurrent delves into the world of mass agriculture to ask how one company has such huge control over the world's food supply. The name Monsanto was once synonymous with Agent Orange, but in today's world it's the dominance of the widespread pesticide Roundup which helps keep the company on top of the pile. But is the World Health Organisation's claim that Roundup 'probably' causes cancer, cause for concern? And what about the company's stance on patenting which sees farmers in developing countries unable to hold on to their seeds for the next season? Guardian Australia has joined forces with The Undercurrent – an online news show billing itself as an antidote to the five-second soundbite – for a four-part series over June and July. Brisbane creators Jen Dainer and Dan Graetz say it is the show they wish existed – so they created it themselves

read more: http://www.theguardian.com/science/video/2015/jun/04/undercurrent-monsanto-roundup-pesticide-herbicide-who-carcinogenic-video

1. monsanto | Your Democracywww.yourdemocracy.net.au/drupal/node/20513‎monsanto. monsanto. By Gus Leonisky at 25 Aug 2012 - 3:06pm; Login or register to post comments; Thumbnail. The opinions expressed in this site are those of ...
2. deadly concoctions ..... | Your Democracy
3. www.yourdemocracy.net.au/drupal/node/17312‎
4. 22 Feb 2012 ... The monumental case paves the way for legal action against Monsanto'sRoundup and other harmful herbicides and pesticides made by other ...
5. beware corporations bearing gifts ..... | Your Democracyyourdemocracy.net.au/drupal/node/1159321 Jan 2011 ... "A fabulous Easter gift," commented Monsanto Director of Development Initiatives Elizabeth Vancil. Nearly 60,000 seed sacks of hybrid corn ...
6. genetically modified lies... | Your Democracywww.yourdemocracy.net.au/drupal/node/12884‎5 Jul 2011 ... [1] The world's top four seed companies - Monsanto, Dupont, Syngenta andBayer - now control over half of the world's seed sales. These are ...
7. of silent killers... | Your Democracywww.yourdemocracy.net.au/drupal/node/18904‎13 Jun 2012 ... Monsanto, the massive biotechnology company being blamed for contributing to the dwindling bee population, has bought up one of the ...
   
   

For a blockbuster recent piece, the New York Times' Eric Lipton got a first look a massive cache of private emails between prominent public university scientists and GMO industry executives and flacks. The emails came to light through a barrage ofcontroversial Freedom of Information Act requests by U.S. Right to Know, which is funded by the scrappy, anti-corporate Organic Consumers Association.

In addition to the correspondence uncovered by USRTK, Lipton used the FOIA to uncover emails showing close ties between former University of Washington researcher Charles Benbrook and organic food companies like farmer-owned dairy company Organic Valley. Lipton paints a fascinating picture of the the place occupied by public universities in the PR and lobbying war between the agrichemical/GM seed and organic food industries.

But his piece, excellent as it is, may actually underplay the extent to which Monsanto, other ag-biotech companies, and their trade groups and hired PR gunsrely on friendly professors as foot soldiers in the industry's battle against regulators and critics.

Here are some highlights that didn't make it into theTimes. Although there is no specific evidence to suggest that Monsanto paid professors for these activities, and many of the professors have said they reached their conclusions independently, the correspondence is nonetheless interesting: 

• In an August 2013 email to nine prominent academics, Monsanto's strategic engagement lead Eric Sachs broached a plan: that the group would pen "short policy briefs on important topics in the agricultural biotechnology arena," chosen "because of their influence on public policy, GM crop regulation, and consumer acceptance."

Sachs assured the professors that the project would be handled discreetly. "I understand and appreciate that you need me to be completely transparent and I am keenly aware that your independence and reputations must be protected," he wrote. Two outside entities—an industry-funded group called the American Council on Science and Health and a PR outfit called CMA—would "manage the process of producing the policy briefs," "coordinate website posting and promotion," and "merchandize" the briefs by helping turn them into "op-eds, blog postings, speaking engagements, events, webinars, etc." This third-party management is "an important element," the Monsanto exec added, "because Monsanto wants the authors to communicate freely without involvement by Monsanto."

read more: http://www.motherjones.com/tom-philpott/2015/09/monsanto-professors-gmo-PR

Read from top...

Hundreds of thousands of people are expected to join a worldwide protest against the multinational biotech and agribusiness corporation Monsanto with rallies to be held in as many as 46 countries in various parts of the world.

read more: https://www.rt.com/news/343917-global-march-against-monsanto/

https://www.rt.com/news/343929-monsanto-bayer-march-gmo/

Your Western press paper today will mention a lot about such footballer's chunder of boozy carrots, but nothing about the fact the carrots are sprayed with Roundup to kill the leaves and make it easier for carrots to be uprooted. But with Baron Rupert of Mediocrity controlling much of what the English media will choose as news, we can't be surprised.

German pharmaceutical company Bayer says it’s paying up to $10.9bn to settle a lawsuit over subsidiary Monsanto’s weedkiller Roundup, which has faced numerous lawsuits over claims it causes cancer.

Bayer said it was also paying up $1.22bn to settle two further cases, one involving polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB) in water.

Bayer said the Roundup settlement would “bring closure to approximately 75%” of the current 125,000 filed and unfiled claims. The resolution also puts in place a mechanism to resolve potential future claims, the company said.

Read more:

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2020/jun/24/bayer-109bn-settlement-...

Cancer patients are celebrating a string of courtroom victories after juries in three US states recently ordered Germany’s Bayer to pay more than $500 million in damages for failing to warn about the health risks of its Roundup herbicides. But the consumer wins come as proposed federal legislation backed by Bayer and the powerful agricultural industry could limit similar cases from ever going to trial in the future.

Dubbed the Agricultural Labeling Uniformity Act, the proposed measure would provide sweeping protections for pesticide companies and their products, preempting local governments from implementing restrictions on pesticide use and blocking many of the legal claims that have been plaguing Bayer, according to the American Association for Justice (AAJ) and other critics.

The measure, which was introduced over the summer, has been gaining traction as a potential amendment to the pending Farm Bill. More than 360 agricultural organizations are throwing their support behind the measure, which was introduced by US Reps Dusty Johnson and Jim Costa. Lobbying disclosure records show that Bayer and the industry-funded CropLife America have made passage a top priority. A similar measure is under consideration in the US Senate.

The new law is needed because pesticides are “paramount to growing our food and keeping communities safe,”according to CropLife.

In response, on Oct. 27, more than 150 US lawmakers signed a letter to the leadership of the House Committee on Agriculture expressing “strong opposition” to the preemption measures, saying they would overturn “decades of precedent” and have a “significant impact” on public safety.  

Local laws that could be in jeopardy include many that restrict pesticide use near schools, parks, and playgrounds, and protect drinking water supplies and wildlife. Preemption of state and local authority would additionally “limit accountability for manufacturers who fail to adequately warn consumers about the hazards posed by certain high-risk pesticides,” the letter warns.

Sen. Cory Booker dubbed the legislation “reckless” and “irresponsible” in a press call on Thursday. “People are making this a priority in the upcoming Farm Bill, and frankly to me it is outrageous,” Booker said.

The industry efforts in Washington come as scores of cities and towns around the US have moved in recent years to limit and/or ban certain pesticides on public grounds due to evidence of health and environmental risks. Glyphosate, the active ingredient in Roundup weed killers sold by Bayer, is among those being restricted.

“Preemption is a threat to democracy and public health,” said Kim Konte, who leads Non-Toxic Neighborhoods, a grassroots organization that works with communities across the country to adopt pesticide-free practices. “Parents and our city leaders, not the pesticide industry, should have the power to protect our children from hazardous pesticides in the parks where they play.”

Notably, the preemption efforts come as the Roundup litigation becomes ever more costly for Bayer, which bought Roundup maker Monsanto in 2018. The company has already agreed to pay out billions of dollars in settlements to tens of thousands of people suffering from non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) they blame on exposure to Roundup and other Monsanto’s glyphosate-based herbicide brands.

Additionally, the company has been ordered by multiple juries to pay hefty damage awards. Last month alone, juries ordered verdicts totaling $1.25 million in a Missouri case; $175 million in a Pennsylvania case and $332 million in a California case.

Jury selection begins later this month in a case in San Benito, California, and several other trials are also on the dockets in multiple states. Among the central claims made in the nationwide litigation is that Monsanto’s products should have carried warnings on their labels telling users of a cancer risk.

Such claims would effectively be blocked, or substantially weakened, if the preemption measure becomes law, according to plaintiffs’ lawyers and other experts. The measure would effectively make the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) the sole authority for determining when and if certain warnings should be required on labeled products, they say. 

“It’s an abomination,” said Brent Wisner, a member of the legal team that won the first Roundup case to go to trial. “I’m doing everything in my power to stop it.”

Johnson, co-sponsor of the House measure, disputes the bill would have any “direct impact on any current or future litigation” or prevent local regulation of the “sale and use of pesticides.” 

But Sarah Rooney, senior director of federal and regulatory Affairs for AAJ, said the intent of the proposed law is clear.  “Wiping out state and local laws is a top priority of these corporations because they don’t want people to seek justice when they develop cancer due to Roundup exposure. We’re urging Congress to reject these proposals.”

Bayer is under pressure from investors to resolve the Roundup litigation, and has argued in multiple courts that under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) the EPA’s stance that Monsanto’s herbicides are not likely to cause cancer essentially bars complaints that Bayer and Monsanto failed to warn of a cancer risk. 

Courts have rejected the preemption argument because of a 2005 U.S. Supreme Court ruling in a case titled Bates v. Dow Agrosciences, which established that the EPA’s approval of a product does not rule out claims brought under state laws. If the proposed bill is passed, it would undo the Bates precedent, according to the AAJ.

Bayer did not answer a question about whether or not it initiated the legislation, but said in a statement that it supports the measure because “the future of American farming depends on reliable science-based regulation of important crop protection products that the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has determined safe for use.”

https://www.thenewlede.org/2023/11/battle-brewing-over-proposed-us-law-that-would-protect-pesticides/

READ FROM TOP.

FREE JULIAN ASSANGE NOW....