This TV News broadcast begins with unrelated (or is it) camera footage of earth and the Northern and Southern Lights from the International Space Station.
Lithium Car Batteries ~ The Sunday Times: UK
The Sunday TimesArchive ArticlePlease enjoy this article from The Times & The Sunday Times archives. For full access to our content, please subscribe here MY PROFILE From The Times October 9, 2009
Lithium car batteries may shift balance of industrial powerLeo Lewis, Asia Business Correspondent The lithium car battery is primed to become a “major disruptive force” over the next decade, dictating the fate of the world’s largest vehicle makers, reshaping the electronics industry and sparking possible tensions between the mineral haves and have-nots.
As carmakers ponder moves into greener manufacturing, the risks of mistakes grow greater with every new battery maker or technology that emerges. With the industry rules reset by lithium, analysts say, new businesses are expected to appear from nowhere. Many will fail but some may go on to become the new General Motors or Toyota.
Lithium batteries and the prospect of some future worldwide market for electric cars have already propelled Wang Chuanfu, the founder of the car and battery maker BYD, to become China’s richest man as shares in his company soared. A year earlier, he was 103rd in the rankings.
The prospect of lithium’s rising dominance over a post-oil economy has begun to draw warnings from government and industrial sources that seismic shifts are about to take place. The investment scene surrounding batteries, analysts say, may become more complex as new companies emerge to challenge the established players and speculative bubbles inflate throughout all stages of the battery-making process.
Related Links
Nissan's 80mph-plus electric family car
The best electric cars on the market
Brokers are touting ways to play the lithium story, from battery producers, such as Samsung SDI and Panasonic, to lithium miners, such as SQM and Chemetall. Several analysts believe that Nissan, with its plans to build battery production in Britain and Europe, represents the best carmaker in which to buy shares to invest in electric cars.
A potentially bloody technology race is under way and mistakes will be made in the stampede, Kanehide Yahata, a CLSA analyst, said. He highlighted the temptation prematurely to view Korean and Chinese producers as the likely winners because there are still huge discrepancies in expertise. Japanese research is eyeing a battery that would allow an 80km drive on a single charge. Korea’s research efforts are focused on developing one that could manage 32km.
“Some automakers, such as Mitsubishi, have missed the point by creating commercially unviable electric vehicles,” he said. “In contrast, Nissan’s Leaf shows great promise. Honda is fretting about what to do while Toyota is quietly treading water. GM is on the wrong scent with the Volt and Chrysler’s plan is just a bluff.”
Toyota’s senior management pointed yesterday to the lithium battery as the “deciding technology” by which Japanese and American carmakers would survive or perish. The supply of lithium batteries is expected to redraw corporate partnerships throughout Asia, particularly in the technology’s heartland of Japan: lithium batteries lie at the centre of the world’s biggest electronics merger between Panasonic and Sanyo.
Nomura Securities analysts predict that lithium will create a new balance of industrial power. “We think the barriers to entry [in battery making] could quickly lower over the next four or five years with the switch to electric and hybrid vehicles the main driver of growth. That could trigger a collapse of the existing business groupings, the adoption of new materials and the deterioration of Japan’s position as the industry pacesetter,” a recent note to investors read.
On lithium’s upstream, the transformation is visible. “In terms of interest and exploration, the lithium industry is experiencing an all-time high. Over the past four months, unclaimed lithium deposits have been snapped up at a rate never seen before,” Simon Moores, an Industrial Minerals analyst, said. The majority of projects, he warned, would end in failure.
Some see a potentially risky side to the boom. On a visit to Tokyo this week, Lord Mandelson, the Business Secretary, described the coming competition for resources such as lithium as “the next battle we are going to have to take on”.
Contact us | Terms and Conditions | Privacy Policy | Site Map | FAQ | Syndication
Lithium car batteries may shift balance of industrial powerLeo Lewis, Asia Business Correspondent The lithium car battery is primed to become a “major disruptive force” over the next decade, dictating the fate of the world’s largest vehicle makers, reshaping the electronics industry and sparking possible tensions between the mineral haves and have-nots.
As carmakers ponder moves into greener manufacturing, the risks of mistakes grow greater with every new battery maker or technology that emerges. With the industry rules reset by lithium, analysts say, new businesses are expected to appear from nowhere. Many will fail but some may go on to become the new General Motors or Toyota.
Lithium batteries and the prospect of some future worldwide market for electric cars have already propelled Wang Chuanfu, the founder of the car and battery maker BYD, to become China’s richest man as shares in his company soared. A year earlier, he was 103rd in the rankings.
The prospect of lithium’s rising dominance over a post-oil economy has begun to draw warnings from government and industrial sources that seismic shifts are about to take place. The investment scene surrounding batteries, analysts say, may become more complex as new companies emerge to challenge the established players and speculative bubbles inflate throughout all stages of the battery-making process.
Related Links
Nissan's 80mph-plus electric family car
The best electric cars on the market
Brokers are touting ways to play the lithium story, from battery producers, such as Samsung SDI and Panasonic, to lithium miners, such as SQM and Chemetall. Several analysts believe that Nissan, with its plans to build battery production in Britain and Europe, represents the best carmaker in which to buy shares to invest in electric cars.
A potentially bloody technology race is under way and mistakes will be made in the stampede, Kanehide Yahata, a CLSA analyst, said. He highlighted the temptation prematurely to view Korean and Chinese producers as the likely winners because there are still huge discrepancies in expertise. Japanese research is eyeing a battery that would allow an 80km drive on a single charge. Korea’s research efforts are focused on developing one that could manage 32km.
“Some automakers, such as Mitsubishi, have missed the point by creating commercially unviable electric vehicles,” he said. “In contrast, Nissan’s Leaf shows great promise. Honda is fretting about what to do while Toyota is quietly treading water. GM is on the wrong scent with the Volt and Chrysler’s plan is just a bluff.”
Toyota’s senior management pointed yesterday to the lithium battery as the “deciding technology” by which Japanese and American carmakers would survive or perish. The supply of lithium batteries is expected to redraw corporate partnerships throughout Asia, particularly in the technology’s heartland of Japan: lithium batteries lie at the centre of the world’s biggest electronics merger between Panasonic and Sanyo.
Nomura Securities analysts predict that lithium will create a new balance of industrial power. “We think the barriers to entry [in battery making] could quickly lower over the next four or five years with the switch to electric and hybrid vehicles the main driver of growth. That could trigger a collapse of the existing business groupings, the adoption of new materials and the deterioration of Japan’s position as the industry pacesetter,” a recent note to investors read.
On lithium’s upstream, the transformation is visible. “In terms of interest and exploration, the lithium industry is experiencing an all-time high. Over the past four months, unclaimed lithium deposits have been snapped up at a rate never seen before,” Simon Moores, an Industrial Minerals analyst, said. The majority of projects, he warned, would end in failure.
Some see a potentially risky side to the boom. On a visit to Tokyo this week, Lord Mandelson, the Business Secretary, described the coming competition for resources such as lithium as “the next battle we are going to have to take on”.
Contact us | Terms and Conditions | Privacy Policy | Site Map | FAQ | Syndication
Tesla's Electric Roadster Battery
Tesla's Electric Roadster Battery
First, we learn that the cells are manufactured in Japan where there are relatively strict environmental laws, and meet the RoHS standards. They are mostly made of lithium metal oxides with zero lead, mercury, cadmium, hexavalent chromium, PBBs or PBDEs. In fact, there no heavy metals, nor any toxic materials. Tesla says that, by law, its battery cells could be landfilled, though that's not what they actually do.
Get your own job boardHere's What Happens to a Tesla Electric Car Battery at the End of its Life
by Michael Graham Richard, Ottawa, Canada on 03.12.08
Cars & Transportation (cars)
August 2009 Update: Tesla Motors is Now Profitable, Shipped 109 Electric Roadsters in July
Electric Car Batteries
Three years ago, we were already trying to reassure people about hybrid car batteries. There seems to be a lot of myths surrounding them, and now's a good time for a little mythbusting. Tesla has just released information about what happens to its battery packs (pictured above) at the end of their useful lives, and we think it's a good case study.
Tesla's Electric Roadster Battery
First, we learn that the cells are manufactured in Japan where there are relatively strict environmental laws, and meet the RoHS standards. They are mostly made of lithium metal oxides with zero lead, mercury, cadmium, hexavalent chromium, PBBs or PBDEs. In fact, there no heavy metals, nor any toxic materials. Tesla says that, by law, its battery cells could be landfilled, though that's not what they actually do.
There are some exciting potential uses for the [Energy Storage System] ESS in its afterlife. While our ESS is designed to maximize performance and life in our roadster, at some unfortunate point, the ESS will come to the end of its useful life in the application :( . However, it might be possible to use the ESS in other applications. For example, the ESS could be used as a power source for off-grid backup or load leveling. The battery requirements for such an application are not as demanding as a high performance vehicle battery. This being said, eventually the batteries will no longer hold a significant charge and will need to be disposed of.
So the batteries might not go straight from cars to recycling, but when they eventually do, Tesla will be working with Kinsbursky Brothers, Inc.(KBI)/Toxco to:
•maximize the amount of materials that can be reused
•maximize the amount of materials that can be recycled
•minimize energy consumption utilized during the transportation and recycling process
In practice, the cells are sent to a hammer mill that turns them into pulp (second photo in this post). They then separate the elements and re-use what can be re-used (cobalt, aluminum, nickel, and copper, etc).
So the battery pack saves thousands of gallons of gasoline/diesel over the life of the vehicle, it is less toxic than the lead-acid batteries that are in regular cars, and at the end of its life it is recycled (which is more than can be said about most things in our society).
The Tesla, and electric vehicles in general, are certainly not perfect and there's lots of room for improvement. But it's nowhere near as bad as those who think battery packs are toxic waste believe.
::Tesla Blog: Recycling our Non-Toxic Battery Packs
See also: Very Promising! Zinc-Air Battery Could Hold 300% More Energy Than Lithium-Ion
More about Tesla Motors: From the Model S to the Lawsuit: Recent Tesla Motors News
See also: ::The Tesla Roadster: Electric Sports Car, ::Video: Robert Scoble Rides in Tesla Electric Roadster with Elon Musk, ::First Production Electric Tesla Roadster Delivered
Interested in electric cars? Check out: 17 Electric Cars You Must Know About
First, we learn that the cells are manufactured in Japan where there are relatively strict environmental laws, and meet the RoHS standards. They are mostly made of lithium metal oxides with zero lead, mercury, cadmium, hexavalent chromium, PBBs or PBDEs. In fact, there no heavy metals, nor any toxic materials. Tesla says that, by law, its battery cells could be landfilled, though that's not what they actually do.
Get your own job boardHere's What Happens to a Tesla Electric Car Battery at the End of its Life
by Michael Graham Richard, Ottawa, Canada on 03.12.08
Cars & Transportation (cars)
August 2009 Update: Tesla Motors is Now Profitable, Shipped 109 Electric Roadsters in July
Electric Car Batteries
Three years ago, we were already trying to reassure people about hybrid car batteries. There seems to be a lot of myths surrounding them, and now's a good time for a little mythbusting. Tesla has just released information about what happens to its battery packs (pictured above) at the end of their useful lives, and we think it's a good case study.
Tesla's Electric Roadster Battery
First, we learn that the cells are manufactured in Japan where there are relatively strict environmental laws, and meet the RoHS standards. They are mostly made of lithium metal oxides with zero lead, mercury, cadmium, hexavalent chromium, PBBs or PBDEs. In fact, there no heavy metals, nor any toxic materials. Tesla says that, by law, its battery cells could be landfilled, though that's not what they actually do.
There are some exciting potential uses for the [Energy Storage System] ESS in its afterlife. While our ESS is designed to maximize performance and life in our roadster, at some unfortunate point, the ESS will come to the end of its useful life in the application :( . However, it might be possible to use the ESS in other applications. For example, the ESS could be used as a power source for off-grid backup or load leveling. The battery requirements for such an application are not as demanding as a high performance vehicle battery. This being said, eventually the batteries will no longer hold a significant charge and will need to be disposed of.
So the batteries might not go straight from cars to recycling, but when they eventually do, Tesla will be working with Kinsbursky Brothers, Inc.(KBI)/Toxco to:
•maximize the amount of materials that can be reused
•maximize the amount of materials that can be recycled
•minimize energy consumption utilized during the transportation and recycling process
In practice, the cells are sent to a hammer mill that turns them into pulp (second photo in this post). They then separate the elements and re-use what can be re-used (cobalt, aluminum, nickel, and copper, etc).
So the battery pack saves thousands of gallons of gasoline/diesel over the life of the vehicle, it is less toxic than the lead-acid batteries that are in regular cars, and at the end of its life it is recycled (which is more than can be said about most things in our society).
The Tesla, and electric vehicles in general, are certainly not perfect and there's lots of room for improvement. But it's nowhere near as bad as those who think battery packs are toxic waste believe.
::Tesla Blog: Recycling our Non-Toxic Battery Packs
See also: Very Promising! Zinc-Air Battery Could Hold 300% More Energy Than Lithium-Ion
More about Tesla Motors: From the Model S to the Lawsuit: Recent Tesla Motors News
See also: ::The Tesla Roadster: Electric Sports Car, ::Video: Robert Scoble Rides in Tesla Electric Roadster with Elon Musk, ::First Production Electric Tesla Roadster Delivered
Interested in electric cars? Check out: 17 Electric Cars You Must Know About
(vid) Toxic Soup : Chemicals in our water and our blood world wide
7 Billion People On Earth Need Clean Water, that includes you and me (everybody)
Tesla Now! John Deere Next?
Tesla Roadster Sets Distance Record: 347.2 Miles On One Charge
On (and on, and on) The Road
The owner of an all-electric Tesla Roadster from Texas has set a new record for distance traveled on a single battery charge: 347.2 miles.
The GPS log of the trip, completed on a closed circuit in California last week, has been posted as proof, but Tesla Motors hasn’t officially verified the new record.
The record is for a production vehicle — no extra batteries or special modifications allowed. The roadster is special in one way; it was the 1000th car to roll off the Tesla assembly line. (Hence its license plate: VIN1K.)
The car, which can reach 120 mph, didn’t set any speed records on this journey. The two-person driving team maintained a nearly constant speed of 25 mph. (That may have been the hardest part of this achievement– resisting the impulse to floor it.)
Tesla Motors puts the official range for the roadster at 244 miles on a single charge.
Most Popular Posts:
Why Are People Excited About Solar Power? One Picture Says it All.
Gabby Giffords: “The Time for Solar is Now”
Tesla Roadster Sets Distance Record: 347.2 Miles On One Charge
Sunscape | The Beauty of Our StarCongresswoman Gabrielle Giffords Shot
4 Comments.
http://twitter.com/cleanelectric
January 24, 2011 at 9:01 pm
wow! if typical in city rush hour etc. is mostly somewhere around 25mph…. this ought to last most people an entire work week on one charge. I make a 180 mile round trip once a week to visit home. A little more than 100 miles on a charge is plenty for me since there is time for me to recharge before the return trip. With the Tesla (and soon to be all other EV’s) I can make a round trip on a single charge. Sign me up, because as of today, that 180mile trip costs me a little over $30.
Speaking of signing me up, I don’t understand why EV’s are being manufactured in limited numbers when each model currently available has a waiting list to purchase them. It seems to me that production numbers should already be ramping up, especially with the cost of oil always rising, and never ever really going down due to the spector of “peak oil” looming over the planet.
With that said, and I know i am straying from the topic of Tesla vehicles, but not from the topic of EV’s, the biggest threat to civilization as we know it is the price and availibility of the oil we need to supply our agricultural sector. The day will come when the cost of farming and transporting from farm to market while depending on oil for farm equipment will become so expensive that food will be available to fewer and fewer people until economy and civility enter into a crisis. (Remember the French Revolution exploded into bloody battle “when the price of a loaf of bread equalled a months pay” for the average person.
Fed Ex and UPS both have added medium duty EV delivery vans to their fleets which average 100 miles at 50 mph. While all of “Green-Tech” is fairly new and arguably somewhat rudimentary, it will only become more and more efficient as we manufacture and produce more and more equipment. The flip side of this fact is that “Green Tech” is also much, much more advanced than the older technologies of the fossil fuel based industrial revolution we have enjoyed for the past 100-150 years. Society has made great advances with the benefit of fossil fuels, it has also been general knowledge since the 1970′s (my generation) that the industrial technology of the past has become unstable, and unsustainable, putting all of the next future generations at grave risk of even surviving at all.
By now, if you are still reading, you must be wondering why I would espouse such a diatribe to an article about such an awesome technical achievment in modern transportation such as the Tesla vehicle lineup. It is because I may be the only one, or the first one who believes that a large and concentrated effort to manufacture EV farm equipment would be a very smart and very shrewd move for every global community to be working on right now! I have attached my POV to the Tesla story because the Tesla story is exciting news that I hope that many people will read this and share it with others. I believe in the concept of EV farm equipment as a way to mitigate and solve the global social, political, and environmental issues that a “peak oil” disaster would bring to bare on all of humankind.
Reply
Peter says:
January 7, 2011 at 7:48 am
Cool. But I think the “hardest part” wouldn’t have been resisting the temptation to floor it, but rather driving so damn slowly.
Reply
Osha Gray Davidson says:
January 6, 2011 at 8:48 am
Hi Karen — I get what you’re saying, but this was an attempt to break a record and those always have some non-real world elements. Tesla’s own estimate of 244 miles on a single charge is more realistic. (And even that range would likely only be obtained by using smart-driving habits — no jackrabbit starts, keeping the speed down and consistent, etc.)
Reply
Karen @ Pledging for Change says:
January 5, 2011 at 4:47 pm
Good stuff but I feel it would have more realistic if the car had travelled at a speed of at least 30-40 mph and maybe driven through towns and traffic too! Nevertheless it’s a briliant achievement and paving the way forward.
On (and on, and on) The Road
The owner of an all-electric Tesla Roadster from Texas has set a new record for distance traveled on a single battery charge: 347.2 miles.
The GPS log of the trip, completed on a closed circuit in California last week, has been posted as proof, but Tesla Motors hasn’t officially verified the new record.
The record is for a production vehicle — no extra batteries or special modifications allowed. The roadster is special in one way; it was the 1000th car to roll off the Tesla assembly line. (Hence its license plate: VIN1K.)
The car, which can reach 120 mph, didn’t set any speed records on this journey. The two-person driving team maintained a nearly constant speed of 25 mph. (That may have been the hardest part of this achievement– resisting the impulse to floor it.)
Tesla Motors puts the official range for the roadster at 244 miles on a single charge.
Most Popular Posts:
Why Are People Excited About Solar Power? One Picture Says it All.
Gabby Giffords: “The Time for Solar is Now”
Tesla Roadster Sets Distance Record: 347.2 Miles On One Charge
Sunscape | The Beauty of Our StarCongresswoman Gabrielle Giffords Shot
4 Comments.
http://twitter.com/cleanelectric
January 24, 2011 at 9:01 pm
wow! if typical in city rush hour etc. is mostly somewhere around 25mph…. this ought to last most people an entire work week on one charge. I make a 180 mile round trip once a week to visit home. A little more than 100 miles on a charge is plenty for me since there is time for me to recharge before the return trip. With the Tesla (and soon to be all other EV’s) I can make a round trip on a single charge. Sign me up, because as of today, that 180mile trip costs me a little over $30.
Speaking of signing me up, I don’t understand why EV’s are being manufactured in limited numbers when each model currently available has a waiting list to purchase them. It seems to me that production numbers should already be ramping up, especially with the cost of oil always rising, and never ever really going down due to the spector of “peak oil” looming over the planet.
With that said, and I know i am straying from the topic of Tesla vehicles, but not from the topic of EV’s, the biggest threat to civilization as we know it is the price and availibility of the oil we need to supply our agricultural sector. The day will come when the cost of farming and transporting from farm to market while depending on oil for farm equipment will become so expensive that food will be available to fewer and fewer people until economy and civility enter into a crisis. (Remember the French Revolution exploded into bloody battle “when the price of a loaf of bread equalled a months pay” for the average person.
Fed Ex and UPS both have added medium duty EV delivery vans to their fleets which average 100 miles at 50 mph. While all of “Green-Tech” is fairly new and arguably somewhat rudimentary, it will only become more and more efficient as we manufacture and produce more and more equipment. The flip side of this fact is that “Green Tech” is also much, much more advanced than the older technologies of the fossil fuel based industrial revolution we have enjoyed for the past 100-150 years. Society has made great advances with the benefit of fossil fuels, it has also been general knowledge since the 1970′s (my generation) that the industrial technology of the past has become unstable, and unsustainable, putting all of the next future generations at grave risk of even surviving at all.
By now, if you are still reading, you must be wondering why I would espouse such a diatribe to an article about such an awesome technical achievment in modern transportation such as the Tesla vehicle lineup. It is because I may be the only one, or the first one who believes that a large and concentrated effort to manufacture EV farm equipment would be a very smart and very shrewd move for every global community to be working on right now! I have attached my POV to the Tesla story because the Tesla story is exciting news that I hope that many people will read this and share it with others. I believe in the concept of EV farm equipment as a way to mitigate and solve the global social, political, and environmental issues that a “peak oil” disaster would bring to bare on all of humankind.
Reply
Peter says:
January 7, 2011 at 7:48 am
Cool. But I think the “hardest part” wouldn’t have been resisting the temptation to floor it, but rather driving so damn slowly.
Reply
Osha Gray Davidson says:
January 6, 2011 at 8:48 am
Hi Karen — I get what you’re saying, but this was an attempt to break a record and those always have some non-real world elements. Tesla’s own estimate of 244 miles on a single charge is more realistic. (And even that range would likely only be obtained by using smart-driving habits — no jackrabbit starts, keeping the speed down and consistent, etc.)
Reply
Karen @ Pledging for Change says:
January 5, 2011 at 4:47 pm
Good stuff but I feel it would have more realistic if the car had travelled at a speed of at least 30-40 mph and maybe driven through towns and traffic too! Nevertheless it’s a briliant achievement and paving the way forward.
Food prices are forecast to increase by something in the range of 70 to 90 percent by 2030 before taking into account the effects of climate change, which would roughly double price rises again.
Food prices set to double by 2030, aid group says
925 million people go hungry every day, according to Oxfam report
Yusuf Ahmad / Reuters
A worker carries a bundle of rice stalks in a rice field in the Gowa district of Indonesia's South Sulawesi province on May 7. Food prices could double in the next 20 years and demand in 2050 will be 70 percent higher than now, UK charity Oxfam SAYS.
msnbc.com news services msnbc.com news services
LONDON — Food prices could double in the next 20 years and demand in 2050 will be 70 percent higher than now, U.K. charity Oxfam said on Tuesday, warning of worsening hunger as the global food economy stumbles close to breakdown.
"The food system is pretty well bust in the world," Oxfam Chief Executive Barbara Stocking told reporters, announcing the launch of the Grow campaign as 925 million people go hungry every day.
"All the signs are that the number of people going hungry is going up," Stocking said.
Hunger was increasing due to rising food price inflation and oil price hikes, scrambles for land and water, and creeping climate change.
'An age of growing crisis'
Food prices are forecast to increase by something in the range of 70 to 90 percent by 2030 before taking into account the effects of climate change, which would roughly double price rises again, Oxfam said.
"Now we have entered an age of growing crisis, of shock piled upon shock: vertiginous food price spikes and oil price hikes, devastating weather events, financial meltdowns and global contagion," Oxfam said in a report. Entitled "Growing a Better Future: Food Justice in a Resource-Constrained World," the report said: "The scale of the challenge is unprecedented, but so is the prize: a sustainable future in which everyone has enough to eat." The report assigns part of the blame to commodities traders, saying three companies control 90 percent of the trade in grain.
"Financial speculation must be regulated, and support dismantled for biofuels that displace food," it said.
Stocking said she favored the introduction by regulators of position limits in agricultural commodities futures trading, noting that financial speculation aggravated price volatility.
The report said: "The vast imbalance in public investment in agriculture must be righted, redirecting the billions now being ploughed into unsustainable industrial farming in rich countries towards meeting the needs of small-scale food producers in developing countries."
The report said the failure of the food system flowed from failures of government to regulate and to invest, which meant that companies, interest groups and elites had been able to plunder resources.
"Now the major powers, the old and the new, must cooperate, not compete, to share resources, build resilience, and tackle climate change," it said.
"The economic crisis means that we have moved decisively beyond the era of the G8, when a few rich country governments tried to craft global solutions by and for themselves.
"The governments of poorer nations must also have a seat at the table, for they are on the front lines of climate change, where many of the battles — over land, water, and food — are being fought."
Reuters and The Associated Press contributed to this report.
Seattle to Build Nation’s First Food Forest
Forget meadows. The city’s new park will be filled with edible plants, and everything from pears to herbs will be free for the taking.
February 21, 2012
Hungry? Just head over to the park. Seattle's new food forest aims to be an edible wilderness. (Photo: Buena Vista Images/Getty Images)
Seattle’s vision of an urban food oasis is going forward. A seven-acre plot of land in the city’s Beacon Hill neighborhood will be planted with hundreds of different kinds of edibles: walnut and chestnut trees; blueberry and raspberry bushes; fruit trees, including apples and pears; exotics like pineapple, yuzu citrus, guava, persimmons, honeyberries, and lingonberries; herbs; and more. All will be available for public plucking to anyone who wanders into the city’s first food forest.
“This is totally innovative, and has never been done before in a public park,” Margarett Harrison, lead landscape architect for the Beacon Food Forest project, tells TakePart. Harrison is working on construction and permit drawings now and expects to break ground this summer.
The concept of a food forest certainly pushes the envelope on urban agriculture and is grounded in the concept of permaculture, which means it will be perennial and self-sustaining, like a forest is in the wild. Not only is this forest Seattle’s first large-scale permaculture project, but it’s also believed to be the first of its kind in the nation.
“The concept means we consider the soils, companion plants, insects, bugs—everything will be mutually beneficial to each other,” says Harrison.
That the plan came together at all is remarkable on its own. What started as a group project for a permaculture design course ended up as a textbook example of community outreach gone right.
“Friends of the Food Forest undertook heroic outreach efforts to secure neighborhood support. The team mailed over 6,000 postcards in five different languages, tabled at events and fairs, and posted fliers,” writes Robert Mellinger for Crosscut.
Neighborhood input was so valued by the organizers, they even used translators to help Chinese residents have a voice in the planning.
So just who gets to harvest all that low-hanging fruit when the time comes?
“Anyone and everyone,” says Harrison. “There was major discussion about it. People worried, ‘What if someone comes and takes all the blueberries?’ That could very well happen, but maybe someone needed those blueberries. We look at it this way—if we have none at the end of blueberry season, then it means we’re successful.”
“This is totally innovative, and has never been done before in a public park,” Margarett Harrison, lead landscape architect for the Beacon Food Forest project, tells TakePart. Harrison is working on construction and permit drawings now and expects to break ground this summer.
The concept of a food forest certainly pushes the envelope on urban agriculture and is grounded in the concept of permaculture, which means it will be perennial and self-sustaining, like a forest is in the wild. Not only is this forest Seattle’s first large-scale permaculture project, but it’s also believed to be the first of its kind in the nation.
“The concept means we consider the soils, companion plants, insects, bugs—everything will be mutually beneficial to each other,” says Harrison.
That the plan came together at all is remarkable on its own. What started as a group project for a permaculture design course ended up as a textbook example of community outreach gone right.
“Friends of the Food Forest undertook heroic outreach efforts to secure neighborhood support. The team mailed over 6,000 postcards in five different languages, tabled at events and fairs, and posted fliers,” writes Robert Mellinger for Crosscut.
Neighborhood input was so valued by the organizers, they even used translators to help Chinese residents have a voice in the planning.
So just who gets to harvest all that low-hanging fruit when the time comes?
“Anyone and everyone,” says Harrison. “There was major discussion about it. People worried, ‘What if someone comes and takes all the blueberries?’ That could very well happen, but maybe someone needed those blueberries. We look at it this way—if we have none at the end of blueberry season, then it means we’re successful.”
Help Save Heirloom Seeds and Keep Monsanto Out of Your Garden
Monsanto is literally trying to take over agriculture. To this end, they are buying out seed companies. You can help save one that's pledged to organic non-GM seeds.
by Heidi Stevenson
3 September 2011
The oldest American seed company needs your help. They sell nothing but heirloom organic seeds. There isn't a single genetically modified variety in stock. Landreth has been a gardener's mainstay for well over 200 years. But they're about to go under because of a corporate bank's insistance that a loan be paid in full by the end of the month.
Monsanto is taking over seed companies, and now owns 40% of the seed business. If their goal is to broaden seed varieties, they have a strange way of demonstrating it. It's growing more and more difficult to find organic seeds, and Monsanto's business methods have shown their desire to force out all seed varieties that aren't genetically modified, requiring ongoing payments to them.
You can help prevent this dark future by purchasing one of Landreth's gorgeous, locally published and printed, catalogs. It could become a collectible item—and if enough are sold by the end of this month, will pay off Landreth's loans, freeing it to continue as a bright spot in gardening and a hope for the future of agriculture. See more about it here.D Landreth Seed Company is part of America's history and stands for the best that America has to offer. They provide real employment, not just McJobs. They care about the future, not just profits. They are creative and they do business with American companies. Read on to learn more—or jump to here for more info on purchasing a catalog.
Landreth Accomplishments
D. Landreth Seed Company has been linked with the history of the United States. Founding Fathers George Washington and Thomas Jefferson shopped there for their seed needs. In 1882, Scientific American wrote:Landreth & Sons have done more to improve the taste for fine vegetables than any other parties in the Union, and from the manner in which the firm goes steadily forward, yearly increasing the shipments by tons upon tons, their future will be still more remarkable success than their past and present.
Some of America's most creative plant breeding has occurred under the Landreth label. In their latest issue, the journal, Gastronomica, credits them with being "incubators for new types of food plants, the basic stuff of our culinary palette". It says that Landreth was responsible for some of the most important food plants to have been developed in the US.
Landreth developed Bloomsdale Spinach, Landreth Stringless Bush Beans, which are an important ceremonial bean among the Pueblos of New Mexico, the Jackson Wonder Lima, the Bonny West Tomato, and Green Glaze Collards. Landreth also improved and maintained the old standard Beefsteak Tomato. Amazingly, that was the basis of the Campbell Soup Company's success. And one of my favorites, the yellow tomato was first perfected by Landreth Seed in 1820.
Landreth also collected and propagated seeds from around the world. They obtained the Osage Orange, also known as horse apple, seed from the Lewis and Clark expedition, and they helped promote its use as a windbreak in hedgerows.
Landreth Seeds helped support the Commodore Perry expedition to Japan by preparing thousands of pounds of seeds for the trip. On Perry's return, Landreth received the first Japanese plants ever imported into the US.
From the early part of the 20th century, D. Landreth Seed Company drifted. It was bought and sold a couple of times. Finally, in 2003, Peter and Barbara Melera bought the company. Their intention has been to return the company to health, provide good jobs for a few people, do business locally, and sell only organic non-GM seeds. They have signed The Safe Seed Pledge, a serious promise that states:
Agriculture and seeds provide the basis upon which our lives depend. We must protect this foundation as a safe and genetically stable source for future generations. For the benefit of all farmers, gardeners and consumers who want an alternative, we pledge that we do not knowingly buy or sell genetically engineered seeds or plants. The mechanical transfer of genetic material outside of natural reproductive methods and between genera, families or kingdoms poses great biological risks, as well as economic, political and cultural threats. We feel that genetically engineered varieties have been insufficiently tested prior to public release. More research and testing is necessary to further assess the potential risks of genetically engineered seeds. Further, we wish to support agricultural progress that leads to healthier soils, genetically diverse agricultural ecosystems and ultimately healthy people and communities.
The Importance of Supporting Landreth
Monsanto is literally trying to take over agriculture. To this end, they are buying out seed companies. They now own 40% of all seed business. If Landreth goes under, then we'll all be poorer and closer to a complete Monsanto monopoly over our food. And Landreth represents even more than an independent seed company. They also stand for organic and non-genetically modified seeds. If you've any doubt about the importance, then read, Monsanto Corn Crop Failures Prove You Can't Fool Mother Nature. The fight to leave genetic structures to nature is a fight for our own future existence.The Landreth Catalog
On Facebook, Barb Melera describes their situation:We set about to restore this Company because it is the most historically important American small business in existence. It is the only American company, still operating daily, that existed when this country became a nation. Its founders were honorable men who helped establish and guide the agricultural and horticultural industries of this country in the 1700s, the 1800s and the 1900s. Landreth exemplifies American business and the ethics and integrity that built this nation.
On Wednesday, August 31, 2011, the Company's accounts were frozen by a garnishment order initiated by a Baltimore law firm. If this garnishment order is not satisfied within the next 30 days, Landreth will cease to exist and a part of America's history will be lost forever. I need to sell 1 million 2012 catalogs to satisfy this garnishment and the cascade of other indebtedness which this order has now initiated.
If you want to help save this piece of America, if you love gardening and heirloom seeds, if you care about righting the injustices of a legal system badly in need of repair, then please help Landreth. Please purchase a Landreth catalog, and if you can afford it, purchase several for your friends. Please send this link to everyone you know, www.landrethseeds.com. One million catalogs is a big number, but with the internet it is achievable. Please help us to save Landreth.
The catalog costs only $5.00, and this is its normal price. Landreth considered producing it cheaply by having it printed overseas. But, they opted to do the right thing. Here's how they describe it on their website:
We could have this catalogue printed overseas, and the printing costs would be 1/4th the costs of printing the catalogue in the United States, but we are not going to take American business overseas. The catalogue is designed by a small, Baltimore-based and family-owned business, Victor DiPace Associates and it is printed by a family-owned local printing company. Producing this catalogue is far more expensive than it is for most companies who are outsourcing their printing requirements overseas. We charge for our catalogue to help with some, but not all, of the costs to produce and mail. Each catalogue that you purchase from Landreth is helping to keep an American employed and therefore making this country stronger.
Links
- Purchase Catalog: D. Landreth Seed Company
- Facebook Save Landreth Seed Company, Order Their 2012 Catalog!
- Landreth Seed Company Facebook Fan Page
Monsanto : Top 10 Things you should Know About Them
Monsanto : CLICK HERE FOR ORIGINAL PAGE
 |  | |
 |
 |  |  |  |
 |
| Share4853 |  |  |  |  Translate |
GMO Food Research | Eli Lilly's rBST/rBGH Pus Milk | Pfizer's Aspartame
Documentary Movies About Monsanto | Books About Monsanto
Documentary Movies About Monsanto | Books About Monsanto
Top 10 Facts YOU Should Know About Monsanto
Some GMO foods have been proven in laboratory tests to...
CAUSE: cancer, sterility, miscarriages, seizures and even death!
CAUSE: cancer, sterility, miscarriages, seizures and even death!
 |
| Principal Subsidiaries: Calgene Inc. (leader in plant biotech); Asgrow Seed Co.; DEKALB Genetics Corp. (second-largest seed/corn company in the United States); DEKALB Swine Breeders Inc.; Nutrasweet Co. (aspartame); Monsanto Agricultural Co.; G. D. Searle & Co. |
Top 10 Facts YOU Should Know About Monsanto
#1: No GMO Labeling Laws in the USA!Foods containing GMOs don't have to be labeled in the USA. Monsanto has fought hard to prevent labeling laws. This is alarming, since approximately 70% of processed foods in the US now contain GMO ingredients. The European Union, Japan, China, Korea, Australia, New Zealand and many other nations now require mandatory GMO labeling. |
#2: Lack of Adequate FDA / USDA Safety Testing In May 1992, Vice President Dan Quayle announced the FDA's anti consumer right-to-know policy which stated that GMO foods need NOT be labeled nor safety-tested. Meanwhile, prominent scientists such as Arpad Pusztai and Gilles-Eric Seralini have publicized alarming research revealing severe damage to animals (monkeys, lab rats) fed GMO foods including: sterilization, miscarriages, cancer, NEW allergies, seizures, and DEATH!!!  |
#3: Monsanto Puts Small Farmers out of Business 100s of American farmers have been sued. Century-old seed stocks were destroyed. 100,000s of Indian farmers commit suicide by drinking monsanto's RoundUp herbicide after massive GMO crop failures bankrupted them. Monsanto uses the courts aggressively. It has sued hundreds of American farmers for patent infringement in connection with its GE seed. In a high profile case in Canada, which Monsanto won at the Supreme Court level, Monsanto sued an independent farmer, Percy Schmeiser, for patent infringement for growing GMO genetically modified Roundup resistant canola in 1998. Percy Schmeiser is a Canadian farmer whose canola fields were contaminated with Monsanto's Round-Up Ready Canola by pollen from a nearby GMO farm. Monsanto successfully argued in a lawsuit that Schmeiser violated their patent rights, and forced Schmeiser to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars in damages. Mr. Schmeiser maintained that this was accidental. He testified that in the previous year, 1997, he had suspected contamination by genetically modified Roundup resistant canola along the roadside in one of his fields and hence had sprayed along the field edge with Roundup, whereupon he found that about 60% of the canola survived. The farm hand performing the harvest saved only seed from this contaminated roadside swathe for replanting in the next year, 1998, and presumably this seed was genetically modified Roundup resistant seed. The court found that Mr. Schmeiser and his farming company (damages were assessed only against the company as Mr. Schmeiser was found to be acting in his capacity as director), "knew or ought to have known" the nature of the seed which was planted in 1998, and that by planting, growing and harvesting it, there was infringement of Monsanto's patent on canola cells genetically modified for Roundup resistance. This finding was upheld at the appellate court level. This type of biotech bullying is happening all over North America. The non-profit Center for Food Safety listed 112 lawsuits by Monsanto against farmers for claims of seed patent violations. The Center for Food Safety's analyst stated that many innocent farmers settle with Monsanto because they cannot afford a time consuming lawsuit. Monsanto is frequently described by farmers as "Gestapo" and "Mafia" both because of these lawsuits and because of the questionable means they use to collect evidence of patent infringement.  Indian Farmer Suicides After GMO BT Cotton Crop FailuresThere have been 125,000+ small farmer suicides in the past decade, and about 4000+/year *REPORTED* in India. In 2006, 1,044 suicides were reported in Vidarbha alone - that's one suicide every eight hours.Some struggles facing Indian farmers are detailed in the article "Seeds of Suicide: India's Desperate Farmers" on Frontline. The transition to using the latest pest-resistant seeds and the necessary herbicides has been difficult. Farmers have used genetically modified seeds promoted by Cargill and Monsanto hoping for greater yields. Resulting debts from such gambles with genetically modified seeds have led some farmers into the equivalent of indentured servitude. More than 125,000+ farmers have committed suicide, which some claim is mostly due to mounting debt caused by the poor yields, increased need for pesticides, and the higher cost of the Bt cotton seed sold by Monsanto.  Shankara, like millions of other Indian farmers, had been promised previously unheard of harvests and income if he switched from farming with traditional [ORGANIC REUSABLE] seeds to planting GM [GENETICALLY MODIFIED STERILE CARCINOGENIC NON-ORGANIC] seeds instead. Beguiled by the promise of future riches, he borrowed money in order to buy the GM seeds.But when the harvests failed, Shankara was left with spiralling debts - and no income. So Shankara became one of an estimated 125,000+ farmers to take their own life as a result of the ruthless drive to use India as a testing ground for genetically modified crops.... 'We are ruined now,' said [another farmer's] 38-year-old wife. 'We bought 100 grams of BT Cotton. Our crop failed twice. My husband had become depressed. He went out to his field, lay down in the [GMO BT] cotton and swallowed insecticide [MONSANTO's ROUNDUP]". A report released by the International Food Policy Research Institute in October 2008 provided evidence that the cause of farmer suicide in India was due to several causes and that the introduction of Bt cotton was not a major factor. It argues that the suicides predate the introduction of the cotton in 2002 and has been fairly consistent since 1997. Other studies also suggest the increase in farmer suicides is due to a combination of various socio-economic factors. These include debt, the difficulty of farming semi-arid regions, poor agricultural income, absence of alternative income opportunities, the downturn in the urban economy forcing non-farmers into farming, and the absence of suitable counseling services.
|
#4: Monsanto Products Pollute the Developing WorldMonsanto is responsible for more than 50 United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Superfund sites, attempts to clean up Monsanto Chemical's formerly uncontrolled hazardous waste sites.Monsanto's deadly legacy includes the production of Agent Orange, DDT, PCBs, and dioxin. Now massive aerial spraying of Roundup in Colombia is being used by the US and the Colombian government as a counter-insurgency tactic, contaminating food crops and poisoning villagers.
1961-1971: Agent Orange was by far the most widely used of the so-called "Rainbow Herbicides" employed in the Herbicidal Warfare program of the Vietnam War. Dow Chemical and Monsanto were the two largest producers of Agent Orange for the U.S. military. According to Vietnamese Ministry of Foreign Affairs, 4.8 million Vietnamese people were exposed to Agent Orange, resulting in 400,000 deaths and disabilities, and 500,000 children born with birth defects. |
#5: Monsanto Blocking Government RegulationsMonsanto also has strong ties to the core players in the U.S. administration of George W. Bush, including John Ashcroft, Donald Rumsfeld, Ann Veneman, Tommy Thompson, and Clarence Thomas, a former attorney for Monsanto who was appointed to the Supreme Court by George H. W. Bush.A revolving door exists between Monsanto and U.S. regulatory and judicial bodies making key decisions. U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, a former Monsanto lawyer, was the one who wrote the majority opinion on a key Monsanto case. Michael Taylor once worked for the FDA, later represented Monsanto as a lawyer, then returned as the FDA's Deputy Commissioner for Policy when rBGH was granted approval.
Monsanto's Monster Lobbying Budget
Monsanto spent $8,831,120 for lobbying in 2008. $1,492,000 was to outside lobbying firms with the remainder being spent using in-house lobbyists.Former Monsanto lobbyist Michael R. Taylor was appointed as a senior adviser to the Food and Drug Administration (United States) Commissioner on food safety on July 7, 2009.
Monsanto's Monster Political Contributions
Monsanto gave $186,250 to federal candidates in the 2008 election cycle through its political action committee (PAC) - 42% to Democrats, 58% to Republicans. For the 2010 election cycle they have given $72,000 - 51% to Democrats, 49% to Republicans.
Public Officials Formerly EMPLOYED by Monsanto
|
#6: Monsanto Guilty of False Advertising & Scientific FRAUD France's highest court ruled in 2009 that Monsanto had lied about the safety of its weed killer Roundup. The court confirmed an earlier judgment that Monsanto had falsely advertised its herbicide as “biodegradable”.RoundUp herbicide KILLS anything that is ORGANIC. "RoundUp Ready" crops are GMOs that have a resistance to RoundUp - usually by mixing the food (corn) with BT (bacillus thuringiensis) bacteria. FYI RoundUp is made from Rockefeller's fossil-fuel petroleum OIL. RoundUp foods are corn, soy, alfalfa, canola, and cottonseed oil... if it's in a box or a can = you can bet it's GMO.
Difference between regulatory registered
In November 2009, a French environment group (MDRGF) accused Monsanto of using chemicals in Roundup formulations not disclosed to the country's regulatory bodies, and demanded the removal of those products from the market.and commercialized formulations False AdvertisingIn 1996, Monsanto was accused of false and misleading advertising of glyphosate products, prompting a law suit by the New York State attorney general. Monsanto had made claims that its spray-on glyphosate based herbicides, including Roundup, were safer than table salt and "practically non-toxic" to mammals, birds, and fish.Environmental and consumer rights campaigners brought a case in France in 2001 for presenting Roundup as biodegradable and claiming that it left the soil clean after use; glyphosate, Roundup's main ingredient, is classed by the European Union as "dangerous for the environment" and "toxic for aquatic organisms". In January 2007, Monsanto was convicted of false advertising. The result was confirmed in 2009. *Scientific FRAUD*On two occasions, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has caught scientists deliberately falsifying test results at research laboratories hired by Monsanto to study glyphosate. In the first incident involving Industrial Biotest Laboratories, an EPA reviewer stated after finding "routine falsification of data" that it was "hard to believe the scientific integrity of the studies when they said they took specimens of the uterus from male rabbits". In the second incident of falsifying test results in 1991, the owner of the lab (Craven Labs), and three employees were indicted on 20 felony counts, the owner was sentenced to 5 years in prison and fined $50,000, the lab was fined $15.5 million dollars and ordered to pay $3.7 million dollars in restitution. Craven laboratories performed studies for 262 pesticide companies including Monsanto.Monsanto has stated that the studies have been repeated, and that Roundup's EPA certification does not now use any studies from Craven Labs or IBT. Monsanto also said that the Craven Labs investigation was started by the EPA after a pesticide industry task force discovered irregularities. |
#7: Consumers Reject Bovine Growth Hormone rBGH in MilkIn the wake of mass consumer pressure, major retailers such as Safeway, Publix, Wal-Mart, and Kroger banned store brand milk products containing Monsanto's controversial genetically engineered hormone rBGH. Starbucks, under pressure from the OCA and our allies, has likewise banned rBGH milk. A recent court ruling found that there **ARE** THREE differencesbetween ORGANIC and rbST/rBGH monsanto pus milk:
When the Federal Trade Commission did not side with Monsanto on this issue, Monsanto started lobbying state lawmakers to implement a similar ban. Pennsylvania Agriculture Secretary Dennis Wolfe attempted to prohibit dairies from using labels stating that their milk does not contain artificial bovine growth hormone (rbST/rBGH), but public outcry led Governor Edward Rendell to step in and reverse his secretary's position, stating: "The public has a right to complete information about how the milk they buy is produced." |
#8: GMO Crops Do Not Increase YieldsDo you know what a ***YIELD DRAG*** is? The last batch of GMO corn in South Africa came up 80% SEEDLESS. South African farmers suffered millions of dollars in lost income when 82,000 hectares of genetically-manipulated corn (maize) failed to produce hardly any seeds. A major UN / World Bank sponsored report compiled by 400 scientists and endorsed by 58 countries concluded that GM crops have little to offer to the challenges of poverty, hunger, and In 1999, a review of Roundup Ready soybean crops found that, compared to the top conventional varieties, they had a 6.7% lower yield. This so called "yield drag" follows the same pattern observed when other traits are introduced into soybeans by conventional breeding. Monsanto claims later patented varieties yield 7-11% higher than their poorly performing initial varieties, closer to those of conventional farming, although the company refrains from citing actual yields. Monsanto's 2006 application to USDA states that RR2 (mon89788) yields 1.6 bu less than A3244, the conventional variety that the trait is inserted into. This concentration of corporate power drives UP costs for farmers AND consumers. Retail prices for Roundup have increased from just $32 per gallon in December 2006, to $45 per gallon a year later, to $75 per gallon by June 2008 - a 134% price hike in less than 2 years. Because gene technologies can be patented, they also concentrate corporate power - by 2000 five pesticide companies, including Monsanto, controlled over 70% of all patents on agricultural biotechnology. And this concentration again drives up costs. According to Keith Mudd of the U.S.-based Organization for Competitive Markets (OCM), "The lack of competition and innovation in the marketplace has reduced farmers' choices and enabled Monsanto to raise prices unencumbered."  At a July 2008 meeting, Monsanto officials announced plans to raise the average price of some of the company's GM maize (corn) varieties a whopping 35%, by $95-100 per bag, to top $300 per bag. Fred Stokes of OCM describes the implications for farmers: "A $100 price increase is a tremendous drain on rural America. Let's say a farmer in Iowa who farms 1,000 acres plants one of these expensive corn varieties next year. The gross increased cost is more than $40,000. Yet there's no scientific basis to justify this price hike. How can we let companies get away with this?" What holds good for maize, also holds good for other GM crops. The average price for soybean seed, the largest GM crop in the US, has risen by more than 50% in just 2 years from 2006 to 2008 - from $32.30 to $49.23 per planted acre.Patenting also inhibits public sector research and further undermines the rights of farmers to save and exchange seeds. Monsanto devotes an annual budget of $10 million dollars to harassing, intimidating, suing - and in some cases bankrupting - American farmers over alleged improper use of its patented seeds. Recent price hikes have taken place in the context of a global food crisis marked by rapid food price inflation, which has exacerbated extreme poverty and hunger, and increased social tensions. The World Bank attributes 75% of this global food price inflation to "biofuels", and Monsanto has been at the very heart of the "biofuels" lobby, particularly the lobby for corn ethanol. Monsanto has been accused of both contributing to and benefiting from the food crisis, while simultaneously using it as a PR platform from which to promote GM crops as the solution to the crisis. In 2008, the President of the General Assembly of the United Nations condemned corporate profiteering: "The essential purpose of food, which is to nourish people, has been subordinated to the economic aims of a handful of multinational corporations that monopolize all aspects of food production, from seeds to major distribution chains, and they have been the prime beneficiaries of the world crisis. A look at the figures for 2007, when the world food crisis began, shows that corporations such as Monsanto and Cargill, which control the cereals market, saw their profits increase by 45% and 60%, respectively."  Actual USDA Releases 2010 Crop Yield ReportsCorn: 457.6 million bushels, compared to 446.76 million in 2009; average yield of 143.0 bushels per acre, compared to 150.0 in August and 153.0 last year; harvested area of 3.2 million acres, compared to 2.92 million a year ago.Soybeans: 228.900 million acres, compared to 230.550 million in 2009; average yield of 42.0 bushels per acre, compared to 42.0 in August and 43.5 last year; harvested area of 5.450 million acres, compared to 5.3 million a year ago. |
#9: Monsanto Controls U.S. Soy Market Almost any food with oil in it is either Monsanto GMO soy, Monsanto GMO canola, or Monsanto GMO cottonseed oil. The bottle that says pure "vegetable oil" is usually 100% GMO soy. even the "olive oil" mayonnaise lists soy as the second ingredient after water. a safer GREENER plant to make these products out of is organic hemp oil, which would actually treat depression rather than causing cancer, sterility, and NEW allergies.Soy protein is used in a variety of foods such as salad dressings, soups, imitation meats, beverage powders, cheeses, non-dairy creamer, frozen desserts, whipped topping, infant formulas, breads, breakfast cereals, pastas, and pet foods. Soy protein is also used for emulsification and texturizing. Specific applications include adhesives, asphalts, resins, cleaning materials, cosmetics, inks, pleather, paints, paper coatings, pesticides / fungicides, plastics, polyesters, and textile fibers. A 2001 literature review suggested that women with current or past breast cancer should be aware of the risks of potential tumor growth when taking soy products, based on the effect of phytoestrogens to promote breast cancer cell growth in animals. In 1996, when Monsanto began selling Roundup Ready soybeans, only 2% of soybeans in the US contained their patented gene. By 2008, over 90% of soybeans in the US contained Monsanto's GMO gene. The United States (93%) and Argentina (98%) produce almost exclusively GM soybeans. In these countries, GM soybeans are approved without restrictions and are treated just like conventional soybeans. Producers and government officials in the US and Argentina do not see a reason to keep GM and conventionally bred cultivars separate – whether during harvest, shipment, storage or processing. Soybean imports from these countries generally contain a high amount of GM content - which is WHY GMO CONTAMINATED food shipments from the USA are generally rejected in (better educated) countries such as UK, Germany, France, Russia, China, and even African countries. Over half of the world's 2007 soybean crop (58.6%) was genetically modified (GMO), a higher percentage than for any other crop. Each year, EU Member States import approximately 40 million tons of soy material, primarily destined for use as cattle, swine, and chicken feed. Soybeans are also used to produce many food additives. In 2007, 216 million tons of soybeans were produced worldwide. The world's leading soybean producers are the United States (33%), Brazil (27%), Argentina (21%), and China (7%). India and Paraguay are also noteworthy soybean producers. Worldwide soybean production: The first genetically modified soybeans were planted in the United States in 1996. More than a decade later, GM soybeans are planted in 9 countries covering more than 60 million hectares. These GM soybeans possess a gene that confers [MONSANTO RoundUp] herbicide resistance. |
#10: Monsanto's GMO Foods Cause NEW Food AllergiesIn March 1999, UK researchers at the York Laboratory were alarmed to discover that reactions to soy had skyrocketed by 50% over the previous year. Genetically modified soy had recently entered the UK from US imports and the soy used in the study was largely GMO. Aspartame is also known to cause NEW allergies and hives by the "reported cases" at the FDA. Some GMO foods have been proven in laboratory tests (on rats AND mammals including monkeys) to CAUSE: NEW allergies, cancer, sterility (consumers losing their ability to get pregnant and have babies), miscarriages, seizures, and even death! |
 |
Food Documentary Movies (click to watch)
 |  |  |
 |  |  |
Seeds of Deception
By Jeffrey M. Smith |
Monsanto Informational Resources:
Monsanto's Dark History | 10 Facts You Should Know About Monsanto
GMO Foods | Monsanto's rBST/rBGH Pus Milk | Monsanto's Aspartame
Documentary Movies About Monsanto | Books About Monsanto
GMO Foods | Monsanto's rBST/rBGH Pus Milk | Monsanto's Aspartame
Documentary Movies About Monsanto | Books About Monsanto
please ask if you want more resources...
News | Documentary | Books | Wiki | RSS
Full List of BestMeal.info Video Channels:
| Share4852 | | | |
Get Listed in the BestMeal.info Food Directory Today!
 |
Original Text:
Show alternative translations
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)