While we are proud our compost helps to support organic dairies trying to make it work sustainably & humanely, we are saddened by what we are now witnessing after decades of conventional dairy production. It’s time for a change.

From the San Franciso Chronicle:
Article by Stacy Finz

The nation’s drought and high corn prices are devastating California’s $8 billion dairy industry to the point where farmers can’t afford to feed their cows - and their professional trade organization has been regularly referring despondent dairymen to suicide hotlines.

Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Calif-expected-to-lose-100-dairy-farms-3946897.php#ixzz29PutQwMb

The Demeter Association has joined a group of approximately 50 membership organizations, seed distributors and farmers/farms in a suit challenging the chemical giant Monsanto Company’s patents on genetically engineered seed , commonly referred to as GMO or genetically modified seed.  We have thoughtfully entered into this action to preemptively protect our members and non-GMO farmers in general from being accused of patent infringement should they ever become contaminated by Monsanto’s genetically modified seed.  We are sure you are aware that in the past, Monsanto has indeed taken this aggressive course of action.

The case was filed on Tuesday March 29, 2011, in federal district court in Manhattan.  In addition to Demeter, the plaintiffs in the suit represent a broad array 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.  Some Demeter members are amongst the plaintiff group.

“This case asks whether Monsanto has the right to sue organic farmers for patent infringement if Monsanto’s genetically modified seed should land on their property,” said Dan Ravicher, PUBPAT’s Executive Director, the plaintiffs’ lead attorney in the case. “It seems quite perverse that an organic farmer contaminated by GM 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.”

As our members are well aware, once released into the environment, genetically modified seed contaminates and destroys organic seed for the same crop.  Organic corn, soybeans, cotton, sugar beets, canola and alfalfa now face such a fate, as Monsanto has released genetically modified seed for each of those crops, too.  Monsanto is developing genetically modified seed for many other crops, thus putting the future of all food, and indeed all agriculture, at stake.

In the case, PUBPAT is asking the court 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 for this result is that Monsanto’s patents on genetically modified seed are invalid because they don’t meet the “usefulness” requirement of patent law.  Evidence cited by PUBPAT in its opening filing today 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 genetically modified 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 genetically modified seed is safe, but evidence clearly shows it is not.”

We will keep you involved in what will surely be a long drawn out court case.  Please feel free to contact us with any questions or concerns.  Talking points regarding the suit follow, as does information about the legal firm taking this action.  Should you be queried about the suit, consider this language that you are welcome to use.

Sincerely,

The Demeter Board and Staff

What exactly is a factory farm?

The industrial model for animal food production first started with the poultry industry. In the 1930s and ‘40s, large companies got into the farming business. The companies hire farmers to grow the animals for them. The farmers typically don’t own the animals—the companies do. It’s almost like a sharecropping system. The company tells them exactly how to build the farm, what to grow and what to feed. They manage everything right down to what temperature the barn should be and what day the animals are going to be picked up for slaughter. The farmer can’t even eat his or her own animals. People who grow chickens for Perdue in Maryland have to go down to the market and buy Perdue at the store.

We collectively refer to these facilities as factory farms, but that’s not an official name. The government designation is CAFO, which stands for Concentrated Animal Feeding Operation. Basically, it’s any farm that has 1,000 animal units or more. A beef cow is an animal unit. These animals are kept in pens their entire lives. They’re never outside. They never breathe fresh air. They never see the sun.

[READ FULL ARTICLE]

California is on the verge of approving a potent carcinogenic gas for use on strawberry fields and other food crops. The chemical—methyl iodide—is so toxic that scientists in labs use only small amounts with special protective equipment, yet agricultural applications mean it could be released directly into the air and water.

On April 30, the California Department of Pesticide Regulation proposed that the state approve use of methyl iodide for agricultural purposes, despite ongoing outcry from prominent scientists and the general public. Arysta LifeScience, a manufacturer of the chemical and the world’s largest privately-held pesticide company, has invested in a substantial lobbying campaign to gain approval in one of the world’s most productive agricultural regions.

Methyl iodide has been subject to ongoing controversy in its approval process. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency approved methyl iodide for agricultural use in 2007, amid criticism from more than 50 prominent scientists that the process was hidden from public view and the research focus was too limited. California followed with its own review. Even though a report from an independent panel of scientists in the California study declared that “methyl iodide is a highly toxic chemical and we expect that any anticipated scenario for the agricultural or structural fumigation use of this agent would result in exposures to a large number of the public and thus would have a significant adverse impact on public health,” the Department of Pesticide Regulation nonetheless proposed that the chemical be approved.

There is little to debate about methyl iodide’s toxicity. It is a known neurotoxin, disrupts thyroid function, damages developing fetuses, and has caused lung tumors in laboratory animals. California already classifies it as a human carcinogen. Fumigating fields with the gas—even with the strictest regulations—would no doubt still result in unacceptable exposures to farmworkers and and surrounding populations.

We have one last chance to stop methyl iodide from being used on our food. The DPR is accepting public comments on its proposal through June 14. Submit your comment today and send the incontrovertible message that we don’t want the public or our food exposed to this poison.

Submit a public comment

Mr. Conklin,

Our daughter came to us last night urging us to watch the video of the abuse at your plant. She was overcome with grief that human beings could inflict such cruelty and unconscious hatred at the most benign of creatures and their infants. The shocking images were too much for her father and me but we watched enough to know where it led.

There are moments in all our lives where we face our deepest, darkest truths.

This is your moment.

What will you do?

Can you look in the mirror and see what you have done? Have you shown this to your children and family? You are a third generation farmer. Did you learn this from your ancestors?

Can you face and take the anger and sadness and grief and rage that so many will be feeling for you and your staff and accept and understand the outrage?

We know this media attention is difficult to navigate, there are many people in communications to help you but handle it you will.

Can you hold an open news conference and truly accept the responsibility, really accept it and be willing to implement change?

Can you attend education classes where you are taught kindness and compassion for all beings?

Can you then spend your lives teaching that same compassion to children throughout Ohio about the possibility to change the very nature of your beings through this exposure in the media?

We challenge you to have the courage, as the brave person who filmed this did, to open your doors and your hearts. Become the standard for safety and kindness and actually change—change your mental state and spend the rest of your lives, and the lives of your descendants, trying to make your farm the leader in humane, clean, loving treatment of the very animals you profit from. You have the opportunity. Certainly one more than those helpless victims of your sick, tortured abuse.

This is your moment. From the ashes of your lives can you re-build yourselves?

We know it is possible, if you have the willingness. But do you?

We are all waiting for your outrage and the outrage of your children and families and friends.

We are all waiting for your next move because we certainly know what ours is….

It’s all here in this petition, which we encourage everyone to sign.

~ Jamie Lee Curtis and Christopher Guest

Read Entire Article

We all know that the forest’s ecosystem is intricately balanced between salmon, bears and old-growth trees – but the network of human interests is just as complex. Conservationists, fishermen, Native groups, lumberjacks, and town governments – all depend on the forest’s ecosystem for their livelihoods as well.

A historic thing is happening in the Tongass right now as these groups put decades of conflict on hold to come to the table and try to fit all the pieces together, knowing that a sustainable vision of the forest awaits at the end.

But the Sealaska Corporation, having profited from years of intensive logging, doesn’t like the way the picture is coming together. Surprisingly, the U.S. Senate is moving forward on its proposal to dismiss the conservation piece of the Tongass puzzle and authorize more clearcutting on high-value land. The “Sealaska bill” will only perpetuate conflict in the Tongass, razing old-growth forests along the way.

Tell your senators to stop the Sealaska bill now!

Conservation is essential to the future of the Tongass. This place is unique and majestic and all too important to waste for short-term gains. It is a place where huge bears grow fat on salmon, eagles soar through endless skies, and 500-year-old trees stand silent sentry over a lush, verdant world. The old-growth trees are the stalwarts of the forest. They foster the rich biodiversity that is its lifeblood, safeguarding its complex, intricate balance. No plan for the future of the Tongass will be sustainable without protecting these iconic trees and the invaluable habitats they enable.

Sealaska Corporation is one of the largest private employers in the region and, consequently, an irrepressible piece of the overall Tongass picture. But we cannot allow its friends in the Senate – far removed from the good faith efforts to finally solve this great puzzle – to force this one piece where it doesn’t belong, blithely discarding the keystone of conservation. The Sealaska bill would perpetuate the conflicts we’re trying so diligently to resolve. The bill is gaining ground in Washington, DC, so please act today to stop this corporate takeover of our public lands!

Tell your senators that conservation is absolutely essential to the future of the Tongass.

Conservation is necessary to secure the future of the Tongass and its people. The balance of complex human needs that depend on the forest requires that we preserve the intricate balance of the forest first.

Thank you for all that you do,

Cindy Shogan
, Executive Director, 
Alaska Wilderness League


Luke Ulrich, who grows corn and soybeans south of Lawrence, is thinking about spring. It’s time to buy seed again, but hundreds of seed companies have gone under in the last two decades.

Ulrich remembers the days before genetically modified seeds up-ended the industry. Critics of the big agriculture biotech company Monsanto say its popular Roundup Ready technology is to blame for that. Roundup Ready is a line of gene-modified seeds that inoculates plants against a herbicide, Roundup, that kills just about everything else.

“Ever since they’ve come out with the Roundup Ready trait and that became popular and basically took over farming, we’ve seen significant increases every single year,” Ulrich says.

Ulrich says his seed costs shot up almost 50 percent last year. That’s because farmers are contractually prohibited from saving seeds and planting them the following year.

But farmers face lawsuits if they try to save and re-plant the genetically modified seed because they don’t own the technology. While they bristle at that, they love the Roundup Ready seed.

“There’s nothing like Roundup. A monkey could farm with it,” Ulrich says.

More than nine out of ten soybean seeds carry the Roundup Ready trait.
It’s about the same for cotton and just a little lower for corn.

“Farmers will not buy soybeans without Roundup Ready in it. So, that gives Monsanto an amazing amount of leverage,” says Jim Denvir, a lawyer working for a DuPont. DuPont owns Pioneer, the competing seed company.

Pioneer licenses the Roundup Ready trait from Monsanto as do about 150 other seed companies. Those agreements control what other genetics competing companies can mix with the Roundup Ready trait. Last year, Monsanto sued to stop Pioneer from “stacking” Roundup Ready with another trait. Denvir says Pioneer complained to the Justice Department.

“A seed company can’t stay in business without offering seeds with Roundup Ready in it, so if they want to stay in that business essentially, they have to do what Monsanto tells them to do,” Denvir says.

Monsanto’s critics say it used this “platform monopoly” to crush many competitors. Chris Holman, a patent lawyer who teaches at the University of Missouri-Kansas City, likens it to Microsoft and its dominant Windows operating system.

“Because of the structure of the industry, they are able to really drive participants in the industry into using their technology,” Holman says.

Monsanto spokesman Lee Quarles says those allegations are unfair, though he concedes they’re coming at the company fast and furious.

“We’re actively working to address questions from regulators, both the Department of Justice and state attorneys general as well as other parties in the industry, to address any questions they have about our business,” Quarles says.

But Monsanto is pushing ahead. It will soon market a corn seed combining eight separate genetically engineered traits.

Roundup Ready technology was developed at Monsanto’s world headquarters in St. Louis.

Jim Tobin of Monsanto says it sells itself.

“Farmers get to vote every year before they plant, and it’s that vote each year that determines who has the largest market share or volume,”
Tobin says.

Monsanto spent huge amounts of money and took big risks to develop the Roundup Ready trait. Tobin says it’s revolutionized agriculture. But now, “Well, we’ve invented something new,” he says.

It’s called Roundup Ready 2 Yield. It uses the gene as the original, just placed in a different spot in the genome. Monsanto claims that boosts yield.

Interesting timing: Monsanto’s patent on Roundup Ready 1 expires in 2014 and with it, a revenue stream of maybe half a billion dollars a year in royalties. That’s unless it can switch farmers over to Roundup Ready 2.

“We’d like to have everyone in the soybean business, seed business using the trait,” Tobin says.

Monsanto’s putting the new trait in all its best soybean seeds. And Paul Schickler, president of Pioneer, says Monsanto is forcing its licensees to do the same. He charges that Monsanto is trying to make Roundup Ready
1 disappear.

“That’s our concern: bridging or switching from one patented product, Roundup Ready 1, to the next generation Roundup Ready 2 Yield, doesn’t allow competition for the original technology,” Schickler says.

Unlike in many other industries, there’s no clear path for a genetically modified crop to go generic. If companies wanted to add other genetically modified traits to Roundup Ready 1 seeds, they’d probably need new regulatory approval. Being able to use Monsanto’s proprietary information about Roundup Ready 1 would probably speed and significantly cheapen the regulatory process, but there’s no indication Monsanto would cooperate with that kind proposition.

Companies offering Roundup Ready 1 will also need closely held technical data to update licenses that keep the trait legal in big, important markets like China and the EU. Absent some solution to the overseas licensing issue, Roundup Ready 1 soybeans will likely become illegal in lucrative markets by the end of the decade. That would mean that if just a handful of the then forbidden DNA turned up in a shipment, importing companies would have an excuse to reject the entire boat load. And remember, Roundup Ready 1 is just the first ag biotech trait going off patent. There are dozens more in the pipeline. Unless a way to address the overseas licensing issue is found, trade could be severely disrupted.

Meanwhile, the end of the Roundup Ready patent will likely give farmers a chance to do something they haven’t for years: plant the seed they’ve harvested. Luke Ulrich is ready.

“I don’t care how good Roundup Ready 2 is, if you tell me I can save back my own seed, I’m going to plant my own seed,” Ulrich says.

The problem for guys like Ulrich will be finding seed that has just the Roundup Ready gene alone, one not stacked with other patented traits.
After all, if he can’t find the seed in the first place, he can’t grow it.

Source