Trolling the White House Garden

This new video segment of Inside the White House features a follow-up story on the White House garden, the first garden of its kind on the grounds since Eleanor Roosevelt’s minimalistic yet symbolic “Victory Garden.”

The first Lady describes why this attention to food production is meaningful. “The garden is really an important introduction to what I hope will be a new way to how the country thinks about food…and I also want to encourage people to think about doing more family meals,” Mrs. Obama says. “We’ve found that we’ve been able to do that, and part of the message is that if the President of the United States can sit down with his family and have dinner, hopefully more families find the time to do the same thing.”

Back in April, when the First Lady announced that she was going to break ground on an organic garden, big-Ag shovelled considerable criticism her way for highlighting the local and pesticide-free choice rather than celebrating “conventional” farming practices which utilizes crop protection technologies, allowing us to prosper.

In a letter sent by Mid-America CropLife Association (MACA), an organization that represents producers of crop protection technologies, to Mrs. Obama and, by extension, to us, we are asked to consider, amongst other things, the great value modern agriculatural practices like the March delivery of California strawberries to the mid-West. While it is wonderful that we have plentiful crops in America and still have a capacity to ship around the nation (unlike Kenya and Afghanistan this year for example), all is not well with our conventional use of chemicals nor our dependence on their transport for sustainable living, particularly during a regional, state or national catastrophe.

With her first White House summer literally under her belt, Michelle Obama still takes heat for her organic choice from trolls in the comment sections of articles such as this Huffington Post one. One commenter even takes a crack at Van Jones, who appears nowhere in the article but has been recently called out as a “Communist” by right-wing drummer Glenn Beck. I’m sure that we will see something coming from Big-Ag soon in response to this latest episode of “Life at the Whitehouse.”

references:
Times Online: Big Agriculture takes umbrage at Mrs Obama’s organic garden, April 22, 2009
Solve Climate: Solving Kenya’s Food Crisis One Indigenous Crop at a Time, Sept. 2, 2009
World Focus: One third of Afghans at Risk of Hunger, Malnutrition
Organic Consumers: USDA says Biotech Compatible with Organic

Eco-Savvy Storytellers watching the greening of politics.

Oregon Hemp Farming Bill Becomes Law

New State Program for Hemp Farmers to be Established

Press Release

SALEM, OR (August 4, 2009) - Vote Hemp, the leading grassroots advocacy organization working to give back farmers the right to grow industrial hemp (the oilseed and fiber varieties of Cannabis), enthusiastically supports the decision of Oregon Governor Ted Kulongoski to sign SB 676 into law today. The bill, which passed the House by a vote of 46 to 11 and the Senate by a vote of 27 to 2, permits the production, trade and possession of industrial hemp commodities and products. With the Governor’s signature, it now makes a politically bold commitment to develop hemp in a state whose slogan is “Oregon – We Love Dreamers.”

“I am glad that Oregon has joined the other states that have agreed that American farmers should have the right to re-introduce industrial hemp as an agricultural crop,” says SB 676 sponsor, Sen. Floyd Prozanski. “By signing SB 676 into law, which passed the Oregon Legislature with strong bi-partisan support, Governor Kulongoski has taken a proactive position allowing our farmers the right to grow industrial hemp, to provide American manufacturers with domestically-grown hemp, and to profit from that effort.” The new law sets up a state-regulated program for farmers to grow industrial hemp which is used in a wide variety of products, including nutritious foods, cosmetics, body care, clothing, tree-free paper, auto parts, building materials, fuels and much more. Learn more about hemp at www.VoteHemp.com.

“Oregon’s federal delegation can now take this law to the U.S. Congress and call for a fix to this problem, so American companies will no longer need to import hemp and American farmers will no longer be denied a profitable new crop,” comments Vote Hemp Director, Patrick Goggin. “Under current federal policy, industrial hemp can be imported, but it cannot be grown by American farmers. Hemp is an environmentally-friendly crop that has not been grown commercially in the U.S. for over fifty years because of a politicized and misguided interpretation of the nation’s drug laws by the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA). While a new federal bill in Congress, HR 1866, is a welcome step, the hemp industry is hopeful that the Obama administration will recognize hemp’s myriad benefits to farmers, businesses and the environment,” adds Goggin.

Many businesses in Oregon manufacture, market and sell hemp products, including Living Harvest, The Merry Hempsters, Wilderness Poets, Earthbound Creations, Sweetgrass Natural Fibers, Sympatico Clothing, Mama’s Herbal Soaps and Hempire. Living Harvest of Portland was recently ranked the third-fastest-growing company in Oregon, as awarded by The Portland Business Journal’s “Fastest-Growing Private 100 Companies” annual award. “We are looking forward to the opportunity to invest in hemp processing and production locally,” says Hans Fastre, CEO of Living Harvest. “This new law represents another step towards heightening the hemp industry’s profile within mainstream America and making hemp products more accessible to businesses and consumers.”

These Oregon-based companies have been on the leading edge of the growing hemp food and body care markets, which are currently estimated by the Hemp Industries Association (HIA) to be $113 million in North American annual retail sales. The HIA estimates the 2008 annual retail sales of all hemp products in North America to be about $360 million. By allowing U.S. farmers to once again grow hemp, legislators can clear the way for a “New Billion-Dollar Crop.”

Hemp Farming Gains Support from More State Governments and Law Enforcement

According to the Illinois Valley News, Josephine County Sheriff Gil Gilbertson said that he supports the legalization of industrial hemp. “I think it’s a good idea,” Gilbertson said in the article which appeared on July 29. “I think it’s a viable crop, and the entire county could benefit from it.”

On June 9, with little fanfare, Maine Governor John Baldacci signed the Maine hemp farming bill, LD 1159, into law. Maine’s House had previously passed the bill without objection, and the Senate later passed it by a strong vote of 25 to 10. The bill establishes a licensing regime for farming industrial hemp, although the licensing is contingent upon action by the federal government. Maine had previously passed a study bill that also defined industrial hemp. Like North Dakota, the new law in Oregon does not require a federal permit to grow industrial hemp.

During the 2009 legislative session, Maine, Montana, New Mexico, North Dakota and Vermont all passed pro-hemp laws, resolutions or memorials. Sixteen states have passed pro-hemp legislation to date, and eight states (Hawaii, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, Montana, North Dakota, Vermont and West Virginia) have removed barriers to its production or research. Like North Dakota, where farmers are in a federal court battle over their rights to grow hemp under state law without fear of federal prosecution, the new law in Oregon does not require a federal DEA permit to grow hemp.

About Vote Hemp

Vote Hemp is a national, single-issue, nonprofit organization dedicated to the acceptance of and free market for low-THC industrial hemp and to changes in current law to allow U.S. farmers to once again grow this agricultural crop. More information about hemp legislation and the crop’s many uses may be found at www.VoteHemp.com or www.HempIndustries.org. BETA SP or DVD Video News Releases featuring footage of hemp farming in other countries are available upon request by contacting Adam Eidinger at 202-744-2671.

Vote Hemp, Inc. Adam Eidinger Communications Director email: adam@votehemp.com phone: 202-744-2671

Tom Murphy National Outreach Coordinator email: tom@votehemp.com phone: 207-542-4998

Eco-Savvy Storytellers watching the greening of politics.

Food, Inc. Opens

“You’ll never look at dinner the same way.”

Opening throughout coastal cities in the nation, “Food, Inc.” features critic/philosopher and food lover Michael Pollan who takes the viewer on a trip through the food chain. If you are on the coast, see it. If you are living in the bread basket states, well, you’ll have to wait for the DVD release.

For more background, listen to this NPR story.

Thanks for your continued subscription. If you have an insight or piece of news that seems to fit our blog, please feel free to contact us.

Food, Inc. Opens

“You’ll never look at dinner the same way.”

Opening throughout coastal cities in the nation, “Food, Inc.” features critic/philosopher and food lover Michael Pollan who takes the viewer on a trip through the food chain. If you are on the coast, see it. If you are living in the bread basket states, well, you’ll have to wait for the DVD release.

For more background, listen to this NPR story.

Eco-Savvy Storytellers watching the greening of politics.

Food Philosopher Pollan Hopeful about Obama’s Take on Big-Ag Practices

“We are eating oil and spewing greenhouse gas”

The Long Now Foundation presents author and philosopher Michael Pollan, who holds both an immediate and long term appreciation for food and its relationship to a sustainable world.

“We find ourselves in an uncomfortable place,” says Pollan, who muses that he, along with others invested in sustainable practices, is now sitting at the table of federal government influencing food and agricultural policy. He declares that Obama understands the problem, but more importantly, will soon be forced to deal with the food system because it is at the heart of the creation of greenhouse gasses (CO2, methane, Ne).

Pollan applauds Michelle Obama, who recently planted an organic plot on the White House Grounds. For that effort, she received a few slaps. One such criticism came from the Mid-America CropLife Association (MACA), which represents the companies producing the pesticides and fertilizers underpinning “conventional” American agriculture who wrote:

“We really think by making this garden organic, you have cast aspersions on conventional foods in our industry. We really hope you consider, buying and using some of our wonderful crop protection products.”

Pollan acknowledges the accomplishment of the modern agricultural system of providing massive amounts of cheap food, but questions its true cost. The U.S. subsidizes only five crops and has encouraged the creation of monocrop farms which are excessively vulnerable to pest infestation, thus requiring more pesticides; however, the government does not subsidize the growth of broccoli.

source: FORA.tv

Eco-Savvy Storytellers watching the greening of politics.

Food Philosopher Pollan Hopeful about Obama’s Take on Big-Ag Practices

“We are eating oil and spewing greenhouse gas”

The Long Now Foundation presents author and philosopher Michael Pollan, who holds both an immediate and long term appreciation for food and its relationship to a sustainable world.

“We find ourselves in an uncomfortable place,” says Pollan, who muses that he, along with others invested in sustainable practices, is now sitting at the table of federal government influencing food and agricultural policy. He declares that Obama understands the problem, but more importantly, will soon be forced to deal with the food system because it is at the heart of the creation of greenhouse gasses (CO2, methane, Ne).

Pollan applauds Michelle Obama, who recently planted an organic plot on the White House Grounds. For that effort, she received a few slaps. One such criticism came from the Mid-America CropLife Association (MACA), which represents the companies producing the pesticides and fertilizers underpinning “conventional” American agriculture who wrote:

“We really think by making this garden organic, you have cast aspersions on conventional foods in our industry. We really hope you consider, buying and using some of our wonderful crop protection products.”

Pollan acknowledges the accomplishment of the modern agricultural system of providing massive amounts of cheap food, but questions its true cost. The U.S. subsidizes only five crops and has encouraged the creation of monocrop farms which are excessively vulnerable to pest infestation, thus requiring more pesticides; however, the government does not subsidize the growth of broccoli.

source: FORA.tv

Thanks for your continued subscription. If you have an insight or piece of news that seems to fit our blog, please feel free to contact us.

Monsanto Sues Germany over GM ban

Op/Ed Piece Special by Amicus Curiae

Monsanto is now suing the German government (and, by that, the people) to force them to grow their GM Corn.

According to “Food Production Daily, the Monsanto files suit against Germany over GM ban:

MON810 maize is genetically engineered to produce Bacillus thuringiensis, which is toxic to the corn borer pest. Permitted in Europe since 1998 for animal feed, it is marketed as a way to save farmers money on insecticides and other pest controls.

However, German agriculture minister Ilse Aigner claimed last week that she had “legitimate reasons” to believe the maize to be a danger to the environment – and believes the Environment Ministry to agree with the view. Although MON810 has been permitted in Germany since 2005, she scrapped plans for 3,600 hectares (8,892 acres) to be planted in the eastern states for this summer’s harvest.

Now the biotech giant has hit back, according to a Reuters article, filing a lawsuit against the Germany government in the administrative court in Braunschweig, northern Germany. The wire quotes a spokesperson for Monsanto as saying the ban is “arbitrary”. A clause in EU law does allow member states to impose such a ban, but Monsanto claims they can only do so once a plant has already been approved if new scientific evidence has come to light.

If the outcome of the lawsuit is in Monsanto’s favour, the cost to the German government has been estimated at between €6m and €7m….

France also invoked the clause on new scientific evidence that cast doubt over its safety last year….

Other countries to implement bans are Hungary and Austria. Last month European ministers voted – for the fourth time – against forcing these countries to lift their bans, despite EFSA’s view.

Makes trying to refuse those sprouts at dinner seem familiar? Several other intelligent EU countries have reservations and have refused to grow these products that are inefficient, low producing, chemically ruinous, fertilizer intensive, UN-tested for toxicological harm to humans, and dubious safety for animals. This is a good indicator that not ALL the world has been fooled by Monsanto.

Some American growers are also moving away, after they have had land become so Roundup resistant they can no longer farm it! News Source France 24 reports:

“Superweeds” are plaguing high-tech Monsanto crops in southern US states, driving farmers to use more herbicides, return to conventional crops or even abandon their farms.”

I do hope that Germany can not only win, but by doing so, set a precedent the rest of the world to follow. JUST SAY NO!! AND MEAN IT!

1. A form of mental alienation, marked by a delusion of greatness, wealth, etc.
2. A mania for big or great things.

I personally think a “form of mental alienation” is the correct term to sum up this news. The level of hubris that must exist for a corporation to attempt to force us to grow anything we do not want to grow, or eat anything we think is unsafe. Leave us to farm in peace without being harassed by GMO-contamination of our crops, animals, honey… whatever it is we produce.

This is a company forcing a government and a people to accept a product they do not want. Somebody certainly has a delusional issue, and it is NOT those who refuse to accept genetically altered food.

Thanks for your continued subscription. If you have an insight or piece of news that seems to fit our blog, please feel free to contact us.

Monsanto Sues Germany over GM ban

Op/Ed Piece Special by Amicus Curiae

Monsanto is now suing the German government (and, by that, the people) to force them to grow their GM Corn.

According to “Food Production Daily, the Monsanto files suit against Germany over GM ban:

MON810 maize is genetically engineered to produce Bacillus thuringiensis, which is toxic to the corn borer pest. Permitted in Europe since 1998 for animal feed, it is marketed as a way to save farmers money on insecticides and other pest controls.

However, German agriculture minister Ilse Aigner claimed last week that she had “legitimate reasons” to believe the maize to be a danger to the environment – and believes the Environment Ministry to agree with the view. Although MON810 has been permitted in Germany since 2005, she scrapped plans for 3,600 hectares (8,892 acres) to be planted in the eastern states for this summer’s harvest.

Now the biotech giant has hit back, according to a Reuters article, filing a lawsuit against the Germany government in the administrative court in Braunschweig, northern Germany. The wire quotes a spokesperson for Monsanto as saying the ban is “arbitrary”. A clause in EU law does allow member states to impose such a ban, but Monsanto claims they can only do so once a plant has already been approved if new scientific evidence has come to light.

If the outcome of the lawsuit is in Monsanto’s favour, the cost to the German government has been estimated at between €6m and €7m….

France also invoked the clause on new scientific evidence that cast doubt over its safety last year….

Other countries to implement bans are Hungary and Austria. Last month European ministers voted – for the fourth time – against forcing these countries to lift their bans, despite EFSA’s view.

Makes trying to refuse those sprouts at dinner seem familiar? Several other intelligent EU countries have reservations and have refused to grow these products that are inefficient, low producing, chemically ruinous, fertilizer intensive, UN-tested for toxicological harm to humans, and dubious safety for animals. This is a good indicator that not ALL the world has been fooled by Monsanto.

Some American growers are also moving away, after they have had land become so Roundup resistant they can no longer farm it! News Source France 24 reports:

“Superweeds” are plaguing high-tech Monsanto crops in southern US states, driving farmers to use more herbicides, return to conventional crops or even abandon their farms.”

I do hope that Germany can not only win, but by doing so, set a precedent the rest of the world to follow. JUST SAY NO!! AND MEAN IT!

1. A form of mental alienation, marked by a delusion of greatness, wealth, etc.
2. A mania for big or great things.

I personally think a “form of mental alienation” is the correct term to sum up this news. The level of hubris that must exist for a corporation to attempt to force us to grow anything we do not want to grow, or eat anything we think is unsafe. Leave us to farm in peace without being harassed by GMO-contamination of our crops, animals, honey… whatever it is we produce.

This is a company forcing a government and a people to accept a product they do not want. Somebody certainly has a delusional issue, and it is NOT those who refuse to accept genetically altered food.

Eco-Savvy Storytellers watching the greening of politics.

Factory Farms Breeding Ground for Hybrid Influenza

This well-researched article discusses the dangers of large-scale factory meat and poultry farms located in close proximity to one another, pointing to specific evidence of a community whose economy largely depends on the corporate farms. The article reports that members of the community had tried to alert officials but were jailed or harrassed

read more | digg story

Slumdog Millionaire and Green Economics

by Richard Lawson

Went to Weston super Mare last night and watched Slumdog Millionaire. With 9 other people in the whole cinema. Like a private viewing.

Best film I have ever seen in my life. Partly because I do not get out much, but up there with Dancing with Wolves. And my assessment is untouched by the Oscars hype.

A story of a slum child answering a set of questions based on his tragic experience of life. A unique fusion of social realism and escapist dreams. A critique of failed economics, police brutality, criminal brutality, and the lies and insincerity of the celebrity culture.

It has been criticized for the term “slumdog” (well, OK) and as “Poverty Porn”. “Porn”? Porn satisfies the desire of some people to see sexually exciting images. Who wants to see images of poverty? Rather, the establishment wants to have these images hidden from popular consciousness. India is a country where poverty, defecation and death are not hidden, but in yer face. “Wealth porn” is what is behind the culture of celebrity throughout the world, where people watch the antics of spiritually poor rich people, and lust after their life style. Slumdog is a negation of wealth porn. If that is poverty porn, then so be it, and so much the better for the film.

The real criticism of the film is the fact that the child actors are still living in the slums.
The director Danny Boyle has set up a trust fund, but it is structured in a way that does not fully benefit the actors and their families now. We should ask that a substantial slice of the film’s profits go to benefit not just the actors and their families, but also their whole community and street children everywhere. There is evidence that the film has increased donations to Railway Children, a charity that works with street children in Mumbai. You can donate on line. Think in terms of how much you paid to see the film.

Charity giving is good and necessary, but the real question is an economic and political one – how to prevent the universal buildup of slums and favellas around the great cities that are growing throughout the world.

Dom Helder Camara said “When I give food to the poor, they call me a saint. When I ask why the poor have no food, they call me a communist”.

I had better start by saying that I am a Green, not a Red, as one of the founders of Greenpeace mentioned during the course of a police beating, a comment that is supposed to have been one of the first uses of the word “green” to indicate the new ecological political ideology. But I digress.

What is the solution to the problem of the underclasses, of which the “slumdogs” are the most blatant example?

First, the existence of absolute poverty is an affront to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which begins with the words: All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.

For this reason all governments must work to eliminate this poverty and exclusion, as part of their Responsibility to Protect.

How? This is not my main field, but here are five suggestions off the top of my head.

First, by reducing the factors that drive people to the cities, of which the foremost is rural poverty. This should not be impossible. The food of the cities comes from farmers in the countryside, so they have a vital commodity to sell, but they are not getting a fair price for it. Part of that problem is the pressure from mega food corporations, who are buying up land for mono-culture food production. Corporation taxes and other restraints will be needed to offset this problem.

Second, the people actually in the slums need a productive economic role. They already have a horrible role: they pick over the rubbish dumps – a foul, health and dignity destroying job. Instead, they can be the recyclers, picking up streamed waste from the prosperous parts of town, sorting and selling it. I saw this happening in Sao Paolo, with scores of guys pulling trailers of sorted waste.

There is other good work for them to do – like laying drains and building composting toilets in their own neighbourhood.

And so on. There is no need for unemployment and poverty in a green economy.

Third, by giving everyone a Citizen’s Income. It sounds radical, to give every citizen a basic income, sufficient for necessities. The idea has been around for a long time, and is making slow progress. If a state can afford things like bonuses, bailouts and bombs, it can afford a basic income. Indeed, it has a duty to do so. The central objection to the CI is “It is a liggers charter” “You cannot give something for nothing”. (No? What about the bailouts then?). The effective way around this objection is to introduce it via a Green Wage Subsidy. Exactly what is needed in the present economic situation. (Pity that the Handbrake Tendency succeeded in blocking it in Green Party Conference last year).

Fourth, a Social Contract between Government and people: Government undertakes to provide food and basic necessities for every citizen, if the citizens undertake to limit their families to replacement value. This is probably going to provoke a storm of criticism, but it is based on a perfectly sound, self-evident truth: it is impossible to expand forever into a finite space. It is simple realism.

Fifth, we need to address the inherently divergent tendencies of free market fundamentalist capitalism, for the rich to get richer and the poor to get poorer. We need a localised, mixed economy with a guided market.

Amazing what comes up when you see a good film, isn’t it. I should get out more often.

Thanks for your continued subscription. If you have an insight or piece of news that seems to fit our blog, please feel free to contact us.