2012-04-04 "For the Birds: Creating a backyard habitat for winged ones" by Juliane Poirier
[http://www.bohemian.com/northbay/for-the-birds/Content?oid=2283925]

"What kind of bird is that?"
At the kitchen window, I'm watching unrelated birds partying together on the deck of my friend Mr. Birdman, aka John Ruch, a Napa birder who scrupulously maintains three kinds of seed feeders, a hummingbird nectar station, an indoor bird-watching scope on a tripod and birding binoculars.
"A rufous-sided towhee," says Ruch. Then, pointing to the others, he adds, "Those nervous little yellow ones are goldfinches, that pushy spotted one strutting his stuff is an uninvited European starling and over there wearing the bright red scarf, that's a flicker."
"What about that one?" I ask, pointing. Ruch looks away sheepishly. "LBJ," he says with a shrug. "Little brown job."
What makes a model (read: sustainability-minded) bird enthusiast is not how many species he or she can identify, but how much effort that person makes to maintain a backyard habitat that supports a variety of bird life. Ruch not only keeps the feeder clean to prevent rotting seed from transmitting bacteria to birds, but provides clean water, options for shelter and places to raise young birds. To safeguard bird life, Ruch allows the house cat outside only under supervision. And he grows plants that produce fruit, seeds, berries and nectar.
"I plant lots of red flowers, like 'Hot Lip' salvia," explains Ruch. "They bloom all summer, and the hummingbirds love them." In his homemade hummingbird nectar, he never uses red food dye, and his birdseed is pesticide-free.
Most backyard birds, according to the National Audubon Society, feed on insects, so they provide an ecosystem service in exchange for your hospitality efforts. Intentional backyard habitat for birds is on the rise around the world; some people even get their backyards certified. A National Wildlife Federation program has certified almost 140,000 yards throughout the United States as wildlife habitats.
But you don't need to get certified to do the right thing for flighted wildlife, and for that matter, you don't have to do everything. Just do something. And for those who have done it all and think they can rest, go the extra mile and buy bird-friendly coffee, grown in the shade. Because birds winter in South America, those coffee plantations that retain bird-supporting trees deserve some plantation-supporting sales.
Then, as you stroll this summer through your backyard bird habitat and sip your fair trade, shade-grown coffee to the sound of wild birdsong from rufous-sided towhees, American goldfinches and European starlings, you can feel pretty damned good about yourself.
For more on names and identifiers of birds, see [www.allaboutbirds.org].
For certification of backyard habitat, see [www.nwf.org].

2012-04 "Clean Marinas Program Helps Ensure Environmentally Responsible Boating" by Bill Picture from "Bay Crossings" newspaper
[http://www.baycrossings.com/dispnews.php?id=2721]
Pollution in the Bay is a top concern of many Bay Area residents, but the search for a culprit is sometimes, well, as murky as the Bay’s waters.
Is it storm runoff, which carries a veritable laundry list of land-borne contaminants, some of them highly toxic, from a variety of sources into the Bay via storm drains and Bay-feeding watercourses? Is it the many, many large freight vessels passing through the Golden Gate each day? Is it the pleasure craft that dart past us as we take in a sweeping view of the Bay from our favorite vantage point? Is it the untreated sewage discharge from thousands of liveaboards who call Bay Area marinas home?
It’s all of those, said Emery Cove Yacht Harbor’s harbormaster Diane Isley. "The liveaboards have been taking the heat lately, but it’s not fair to point the finger just at them," she said. "As a rule, I’d say the liveaboards are the most conscientious."
Still, Isley said it only take a few irresponsible marina tenants dumping untreated sewage directly into the water to spoil it for the rest of the floating bunch. Bay pollution watchdog Baykeeper estimates there are enough bad apples living on the Bay to warrant serious concern. But without hard numbers, the claim falls largely on deaf ears, at least within the liveaboard community, amongst whose members it has aroused ire lately.
Isley wishes there were data available, so that stakeholders in a clean Bay could know once and for all who the worst culprits are, and then decide on an effective course of action. The problem is, the agencies in charge of keeping the Bay and other waterways free of pollution are underfunded as it is, and it seems unlikely that a study of specific point sources is imminent.
Thus, claims being volleyed back and forth between regulators and concerned Bay-lovers on one side, and harbormasters and boat owners on the other side, rely heavily on anectodal evidence. Some of the debates make even Isley, who’s been a harbormaster for 25 years and said she’s seen just about everything, wince.
"I’ve heard some real horror stories, and some of them are probably true," she said. "But I’d still say that the liveaboards are only a part of a problem."
Because the in-charge agencies are short on the wherewithal to regulate, the responsibility for enforcement has fallen largely on harbormasters, many of whom are also stretched too thin to play water-quality police.
"The boat owners should really be taking responsibility for themselves, but self-policing doesn’t always work," Isley said. "In order for that to really work, the marina owners, the harbormasters and the boat owners really need to work together as a solid, effectively self-regulating group."
While they wait for the boat-owning masses to get onboard, a growing group of marina owners and harbormasters has created the Clean Marina program. Using boater education as a key tool, the 100-plus member marinas in California employ program-prescribed best management practices that help prevent or reduce pollution and earn the marinas points toward Clean Marina certification. Many Bay Area marinas currently carry the Clean Marina designation but several notable local marinas have so far chosen not to participate.
Isley helped earn Emery Cove its certification. The Indiana native, who had a Los Angeles-to-New Zealand sailing trip under her seafaring belt before settling in the Bay Area in 1986, runs a tight ship when it comes to the marina under her charge.
For those boat owners who use their on-board heads, Isley requires that they call her from the marina’s pump-out station so that she can keep track of how often they are pumping out, or provide proof that a mobile pump-out service was contracted. She also performs an annual check of each boat to ensure that its y-valve is secured in the closed position. An open y-valve allows sewage to be discharged directly into the water.
In addition to allowing harbormasters to control the quality of the water in their own marinas, Isley said the measures afford a great opportunity for harbormasters to educate their tenants.
"It’s a good time to talk to your tenants about the laws and regulations, which are updated pretty regularly," she said. "That’s particularly important with new boaters and weekend boaters, who aren’t as familiar with the laws as the old-timers. I’m more concerned about new boaters and weekend boaters than I am about the liveaboards."
"I know that many harbormasters are sort of at their limit, workload-wise; but it really only takes a few minutes," she said. "And it gives me something to help prove to the powers-that-be that we’re complying with the rules if we’re ever challenged."
The Clean Marina program proved to be a very effective tool when regulators recently attempted to throw new fees at the problem of pollution from marinas. Those fees would have cost marinas hundreds of thousands of dollars.
"Marina owners and boat owners already pay so much in fees," she said. "In fact, we already pay for water monitoring when we dredge."
The group was able to shoot down the additional charges, for now at least, by providing detailed documentation proving their compliance with laws pertaining to the handling of sewage on small vessels. "That’s what you need, to be able to provide documentation like we did," she said. "You have to be organized."
In exchange for temporarily dropping talk of added fees, the state came up with a list of additional points that it wants folded in to the Clean Marina program. Isley said that Clean Marina’s president, Tim Leathers, is working now to incorporate those points.
"I don’t think the issue is completely dead," she added. "So the key is to be proactive. And educating and raising consciousness within the boating community is important."
For more information on the Clean Marina program, visit www.cleanmarina.org
---
Emery Cove has been a designated “Clean Marina” for successful implementation of the Best Management Practices in the Clean Marina Program since November 2006.

Emery Cove Yacht Harbor is a 430-slip dockominium marina located on the Emeryville Peninsula. A dockominium is a marina that allows tenants to purchase their slips. Emery Cove Yacht Harbor is the only marina in the Bay Area offering the possibility of owning your own boat slip in a 100 percent fee title ownership. Photo by Jean-Michel Addor

2012-03-30 "Neurotoxic Pesticides Helping to Decimate Bee Populations, Studies Indicate; Two studies show that a class of chemicals known as neonicotinoids created disorientation among bees and caused colonies to lose weight, which may have contributed to a mysterious die-off" from "Common Dreams"
[http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2012/03/30-0]
Two new studies released on Thursday show that industrial pesticides -- specifically chemical neurotoxins called 'neonicotinoids' -- have robust negative impact on the honey bees' ability to navigate and sufficiently reproduce.  Previous studies have shown that insecticides may play a role in 'colony collapse disorder,' a term that describes huge bee die-offs in recent years, the direct and specific cause of which has remained elusive to scientists, but these studies are unique for being conducted in the field as opposed to in laboratory conditions.
 A honeybee pollinates a flower in a citrus grove just coming into blossom. (Photograph: David Silverman/Getty Images)
"People had found pretty trivial effects in lab and greenhouse experiments, but we have shown they can translate into really big effects in the field. This has transformed our understanding," Prof David Goulson, at the University of Stirling and leader of one of the research teams told The Guardian. "If it's only one metre from where they forage in a lab to their nest, even an unwell bee can manage that."
One scientist, who lauded the study for its role in furthering understanding of the bees decline, also noted that the study should aware the public that these same chemical pesticides could be having similar impacts on other species as well. "There's a general phenomenon of pollinator decline — bats, bird, butterflies, all kinds of things," he said.
*  *  *
From Science Magazine: Field Research on Bees Raises Concern About Low-Dose Pesticides [http://www.sciencemag.org/content/335/6076/1555]:
Five years ago, bees made headlines when a mysterious condition called colony collapse disorder decimated honey bee colonies in parts of the United States. Now bees are poised to be in the news again, this time because of evidence that systemic insecticides, a common way to protect crops, indirectly harm these important pollinators. Two field studies reported online this week in Science document problems. In bumble bees, exposure to one such chemical leads to a dramatic loss of queens and could help explain the insects' decline. In honey bees, another insecticide interferes with the foragers' ability to find their way back to the hive. Researchers say these findings are cause for concern and will increase pressure to improve pesticide testing and regulation.
*  *  *
Wired.com reports [http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2012/03/neonicotinoids-bee-collapse/]:
“It’s pretty damning,” said David Goulson, a bee biologist at Scotland’s University of Stirling. “It’s clear evidence that they’re likely to be having an effect on both honeybees and bumblebees.”
Neonicotinoids emerged in the mid-1990s as a relatively less-toxic alternative to human-damaging pesticides. They soon became wildly popular, and were the fastest-growing class of pesticides in modern history. Their effects on non-pest insects, however, were unknown.
In the mid-2000s, beekeepers in the United States and elsewhere started to report sharp and inexplicable declines in honeybee populations. Researchers called the phenomenon colony collapse disorder. It was also found in bumblebees, and in some regions now threatens to extirpate bees altogether.
Many possible causes were suggested, from viruses and mites to industrial beekeeping practices and climate change. Pesticides, in particular neonicotinoids, also came under scrutiny.
Leaked internal reports by the Environmental Protection Agency showed that industry-run studies used to demonstrate some neonicotinoids’ environmental safety were shoddy and unreliable. Other researchers found signs that neonicotinoids, while they didn’t kill bees outright, affected their ability to learn and navigate.
*  *  *
The Guardian report adds [http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/mar/29/crop-pesticides-honeybee-decline?intcmp=122]:
The pesticides investigated in the new studies - insect neurotoxins called neonicotinoids - are applied to seeds and flow through the plants' whole system. The environmental advantage of this is it reduces pesticide spraying but chemicals end up in the nectar and pollen on which bees feed. Goulson's group studied an extremely widely used type called imidacloprid, primarily manufactured by Bayer CropScience, and registered for use on over 140 crops in 120 countries.
Bumblebees were fed the toxin at the same level found in treated rape plants and found that these colonies were about 10% smaller than those not exposed to the insecticide. Most strikingly, the exposed colonies lost almost all of their ability to produce queens, which are the only bee to survive the winter and establish new colonies. "There was a staggering magnitude of effect," said Goulson. "This is likely to have a substantial population-level impact."
The French team analysed the effect on honey bees of a new generation neonicotinoid, called thiamethoxam and manufactured by Syngenta. They fitted tiny electronic tags to over 650 bees and monitored their activity around the hive. Those exposed to "commonly encountered" levels of thiamethoxam suffered high mortality, with up to a third of the bees failing to return. "They disappeared in much higher numbers than expected," said Henry. Previous scientific work has shown insect neurotoxins may cause memory, learning, and navigation problems in bees.
*  *  *
The Los Angeles Times [http://www.latimes.com/news/science/la-sci-bees-pesticides-20120330,0,4969345.story]:
Jeff Pettis of the Department of Agriculture's bee research lab in Beltsville, Md., who wasn't involved in the studies, praised the bumblebee report in particular for highlighting that honeybees aren't the only ones that may suffer from sublethal doses of pesticides. He predicted that the effects on bee reproduction would raise red flags for regulators at the Environmental Protection Agency.
"There's a general phenomenon of pollinator decline — bats, bird, butterflies, all kinds of things," he said.

2012-03-26 "Solano Land Trust Through The Eyes Of Artists"

from "Benicia Magazine" [http://www.beniciamagazine.com/Blogs/Happenings/April-2012/Seeing-Solano-II-Solano-Land-Trust-Through-The-Eyes-Of-Artists/]:
"Jepson Prairie fog" by Deanna Forbes

"Jepson" by Gregory Vasgerdsian

"King Ranch" by Linda Grebmeier

 "Lynch Canyon Summer#1" by Susan Schneider

 Twenty-five professional artists and photographers have independently organized themselves to support the mission of Solano Land Trust and made a commitment to produce a body of work inspired by the Trust’s open spaces and protected agricultural lands.
 A group show of their work, organized by artists Susan Schneider and Deanna Forbes, will be exhibited exhibit at the Marilyn C. O’Rourke Gallery at the Benicia Public Library April 1– May 6, 2012. A Reception for the Artists will be April 1, 2012 at 2–5pm. The event is free and the public is invited to attend.
An Earth Day Awareness program is scheduled for April 21, 2-5pm in the Dona Benicia Room at the Benicia Public Library. A film screening of Green Fire: Aldo Leopold and A Land Ethic for Our Time and a presentation by Solano Land Trust are planned. The event is free and open to the public though seating is limited. To reserve a seat, RSVP at www.solanolandtrust.org or contact Solano Land Trust directly at 707-432-0150, ext. 200 or email volunteer@solanolandtrust.org.
 In order to bring public awareness through exhibits and sales of their work to support to the Land Trust’s mission of preserving open space and creating agricultural easements protecting farmland in Solano County, each artist has agreed to produce a minimum of 6 original works in any medium. Each artist brings a distinctive and developed voice to the effort.
 The works of sixteen of the artists will be exhibiting: Adriana Arriaga, Ellen Dodd, Becky Dolcini, Deanna Forbes, Linda Grebmeier, Lisa Greenstein, Carlyle Johnson, Betsy Kendall, Diana Krevsky, Marc Pandone, Chris Ray, Brian Rothstein, Susan Schneider, Gregory Vasgerdsian, Irby Walton, and Doug Wirtz.
The artists have in common their professionalism and commitment to their craft, finding inspiration in local landscape and renewing a connection to the land, and their desire and commitment to bring awareness and support to Solano Land Trust and land conservation issues.
 Each artist brings years of professional study and practice to their efforts, working to express aspects of the visual splendor to be found in the flora and fauna of rolling oak grasslands, ancient vernal pools, lush tidal marshes, and the rich agricultural heritage of the Central Valley. Painters and photographers work solo or in small groups at Jepson Prairie, King-Swett Ranch, Lynch Canyon, Rush Ranch, and agricultural sites protected by Solano Land Trust easements. A few painters work in plein air––sometimes finishing a painting on site. Others do quick sketches and make small studies to take back to their studios for larger or abstracted works later in oils, pastels, acrylics, casein, or mono-prints.
Similarly, photographers working with a variety of format express their unique voices. Shooting in 35mm, large format, film or digital cameras, some work in black & white, others in color, while a few manipulate digitally to capture a moment, a mood, a sense of place, working in personal way to connect with spaces and habitats.
 The collection of work portrays a rich visual portrait of the beauty and diversity of the local natural world waiting to be discovered and cherished. We hope as artists that in the coming exhibits we can share with the public what has inspired us by Solano Land Trust’s remarkable efforts to conserve local open space. And we hope that through art we can encourage others to find or re-new their own connections with nature and to discover and support Solano Land Trust.

Seeing Solano II: Solano Land Trust through the eyes of artists
Opening and Artists’ Reception April 1, 2012, 2-5pm
 Marilyn Citron O’Rourke Gallery
 Benicia Public Library

Earth Day Awareness Program
April 21, 2012, 2-5pm
Green Fire: Aldo Leopold and a Land Ethic for Our Time
 Dona Benicia Room
 Benicia Public Library

 Benicia Public Library
 150 East L Street, Benicia CA 94510
 Library hours: Mon–thurs 10am–9pm, Fri–Sun noon–6 pm PST
 (707) 746-4343   www.ci.benicia.ca.us/library.html

Pharmaceutical Drug Waste pamphlet produced by City of Vallejo

 
 
 
 

2012-03-23 "Monsanto, Lies, Kids and Science" by Ronnie Cummins from "AlterNet"
[http://www.readersupportednews.org/opinion2/277-75/10601-monsanto-lies-kids-and-science]
Ronnie Cummins is founder and director of the Organic Consumers Association. Cummins is author of numerous articles and books, including "Genetically Engineered Food: A Self-Defense Guide for Consumers" (Second Revised Edition Marlowe & Company 2004).
---
It's not enough that the biotech industry - led by multinational corporations such as Monsanto, Dow, Syngenta, BAS, and Dupont - is poisoning our food and our planet. It's also poisoning young minds.
In a blatant attempt at brainwashing, the Council for Biotechnology Information (CBI) has widely circulated what it calls a Biotechnology Basics Activity Book for kids, to be used by "Agriculture and Science Teachers." The book - called Look Closer at Biotechnology - looks like a science workbook, but reads more like a fairy tale. Available on the council's Web site, its colorful pages are full of friendly cartoon faces, puzzles, helpful hints for teachers - and a heavy dose of outright lies about the likely effects of genetic engineering on health, the environment, world hunger and the future of farming.
CBI's lies are designed specifically for children, and intended for use in classrooms.
At a critical time in history when our planet is veering toward a meltdown, when our youth are suffering the health consequences (obesity, diabetes, allergies) of Big Ag and Food Inc.'s over-processed, fat-and sugar-laden, chemical-, and GMO-tainted foods, a time when we should be educating tomorrow's adults about how to reverse climate change, how to create sustainable farming communities, how to promote better nutrition, the biotech industry's propagandists are infiltrating classrooms with misinformation in the guise of "educational" materials.
Brainwashing children. It's a new low, even for Monsanto.
You don't have to read beyond the first page of Look Closer at Biotechnology to realize that this is pure propaganda:
[begin excerpt]
Hi Kids! Welcome to the Biotechnology Basics Activity Book. This is an activity book for young people like you about biotechnology - a really neat topic. Why is it such a neat topic? Because biotechnology is helping to improve the health of the Earth and the people who call it home. In this book, you will take a closer look at biotechnology. You will see that biotechnology is being used to figure out how to: 1) grow more food; 2) help the environment; and 3) grow more nutritious food that improves our health. As you work through the puzzles in this book, you will learn more about biotechnology and all of the wonderful ways it can help people live better lives in a healthier world. Have fun!
[end excerpt]
Before we take a closer look at the lies laid out in Look Closer at Biotechnology - lies that are repeated over and over again, the better to imprint them on young minds - let's take a closer look at the book's publisher. The Council for Biotechnology Information describes itself  as "a non-profit 501(c)(6) organization that communicates science-based information about the benefits and safety of agricultural biotechnology and its contributions to sustainable development."
According to the Internal Revenue Service, a 501(c)(6) organization is a "business league" devoted to the improvement of business conditions of one or more lines of business. The mission of a 501(c)(6) organization "must focus on the advancement of the conditions of a particular trade or the interests of the community."
The bottom line is that CBI exists to advance the interests of the corporations that it was formed to promote - in this case, the biotech industry. While it purports to communicate "science-based information," in fact, that's not its mission at all. Its mission is to maximize the profits of Monsanto and the biotech industry.
Not surprisingly, CBI is funded largely by the biotech, chemical, pesticide, and seed industry giants: BASF, Bayer CropScience, Dow Agro Sciences, Dupont, Monsanto, and Syngenta.
There's nothing new about corporations lying to the public. Corporations routinely lie to their employees. They lie in advertising. They lie in the lopsided so-called studies and research projects that they self-fund in order to guarantee the outcomes that support their often false, but self-serving premises. They buy off politicians, regulatory officials, scientists, and the media.
Although here we're focusing on the biotech industry trying to brainwash our kids, CBI certainly does not limit its propaganda to just children. CBI recently contributed $375,000 to the Coalition Against the Costly Labeling Law - a Sacramento-based industry front group working to defeat the California Right to Know Genetically Engineered Food Act of 2012. If passed in November, this citizens' ballot Initiative will require food manufacturers and retailers to label foods containing genetically engineered ingredients, as well as ban the routine industry practice of labeling or advertising GE-tainted foods as "natural" or "all natural." CBI, the Farm Bureau, and the Grocery Manufacturers Association are campaigning furiously to preserve their "right" to keep consumers in the dark about whether their food has been genetically engineered or not, and to preserve their "right" to mislabel gene-altered foods as "natural."
Clearly, the Council for Biotechnology Information has little or no regard for "science-based" information. But lies aimed directly at kids - under the guise of science education? In our schools?
Let's take a closer look at the claims made in Look Closer at Biotechnology.

Lie #1: "Biotechnology is one method being used to help farmers grow more food." (page 7)
This statement is patently false.
In 2009, in the wake of similar studies, the Union of Concerned Scientists examined the data on genetically engineered crops, including USDA statistics. Their report - Failure to Yield [http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/food_and_agriculture/failure-to-yield.pdf] - was the first major effort to evaluate in detail the overall yields of GE crops after more than 20 years of research and 13 years of commercialization in the United States. According to the definitive UCS study, "GE has done little to increase overall crop yields." A number of studies indicate in fact that GE soybeans, for example, actually produce lower yields than non-genetically engineered varieties.
Research conducted by the India research group, Navdanya, and reported in The GMO Emperor Has No Clothes turns up the same results [http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-files/Environment/documents/2011/10/19/GMOEMPEROR.pdf]:
[begin excerpt]
Contrary to the claim of feeding the world, genetic engineering has not increased the yield of a single crop. Navdanya's research in India has shown that contrary to Monsanto's claim of Bt cotton yield of 1500 kg per acre, the reality is that the yield is an average of 400-500 kg per acre. Although Monsanto's Indian advertising campaign reports a 50-percent increase in yields for its Bollgard cotton, a survey conducted by the Research Foundation for Science, Technology and Ecology found that the yields in all trial plots were lower than what the company promised. (Page 11).
[end excerpt]
The claim that GE crops increase agricultural yields is a blatant lie. Equally untrue is the industry's claim that it is motivated by the desire to feed the hungry of the world. As the Union of Concerned Scientists points out: "For the most part, genetic engineering techniques are being applied to crops important to the industrialized world, not crops on which the world's hungry depend." Where does all the genetically engineered soy and corn - two of the largest GE crops - end up? In animal feed, processed junk foods - and school lunchrooms. Precious little goes to feed the hungry in impoverished regions.
One of the sub-arguments related to increasing yields is the biotech industry's claim that GMO crops are more resistant to pests - hence more of the crops survive. In Look Closer at Biotechnology kids are told that agricultural biotechnology is a "precise way to make seeds with special qualities. These seeds will allow farmers to grow plants that are . . . more resistant to pests . . ." In fact widespread commercialization of herbicide-resistant and Bt-spliced GE crops has engendered a growing army of superweeds and superpests, oblivious to all but the most powerful and toxic pesticides.
What we should be teaching kids in science class is what scientists have been warning for years - that any attempt to increase resistance to pests through genetic engineering will ultimately fail. Insects - and diseases - will build up a tolerance over time, and evolve into stronger and stronger strains. That's how nature works - and even Monsanto can't fool Mother Nature. Organic agriculture, on the other hand, utilizing crop rotation, biodiversity, natural fertilizers, and beneficial insects, reduces crop loss from pests and weeds, without the collateral damage of toxic pesticides and fertilizers.
Recently, 22 leading scientists told [http://www.northcountrypublicradio.org/news/npr/148227668/insect-experts-issue-urgent-warning-on-using-gm-seeds] the US Environmental Protection Agency that it should act with "a sense of urgency" to urge farmers to stop planting Monsanto's genetically engineered Bt corn because it will no longer protect them from the corn rootworm. Bt corn is genetically engineered with bacterial DNA that produces an insecticide in every cell of the plant, aimed at preventing corn rootworm. Except that corn rootworms have now developed resistance to these GE mutants.
Just as scientists had predicted years ago, a new generation of insect larvae has evolved, and is eating away at the roots of Monsanto's Bt corn - a crop farmers paid a high price for on Monsanto's promise that they would never have to worry about corn rootworm again. Scientists are now warning of massive yield loss and surging corn costs if the EPA doesn't act quickly to drastically reduce Bt crops' acreage and ensure that Monsanto makes non-GMO varieties of corn available to farmers.
"Massive yield loss" doesn't sound like "more food" - whether you're 12 years old or 112.
What we should be telling kids is what responsible scientists and farmers - experts at the United Nations - have been saying all along: Eco-farming can double food output [http://uk.reuters.com/article/2011/03/08/us-food-idUKTRE7272FN20110308]. According to a UN study:
* Eco-farming projects in 57 nations showed average crop yield gains of 80 percent by tapping natural methods for enhancing soil and protecting against pests.
* Projects in 20 African countries resulted in a doubling of crop yields within three to 10 years.
* Sound ecological farming can significantly boost production and in the long term be more effective than conventional farming.


Lie #2: "Biotechnology can help farmers and the environment in many ways." (page 8)
Two lies for the price of one.
Biotechnology - specifically genetic engineering - helps neither farmers nor the environment, according to the majority of legitimate scientists and economists. In fact, the opposite is true. Genetic engineering of seeds has wreaked havoc on the environment and brought misery to hundreds of thousands of small farmers all over the world.
The majority of farmers in developing countries struggle to afford even the most basic requirements of seeds and fertilizers. Their survival depends on the age-old practice of selecting, saving and sharing seeds from one year to the next. When multinational corporations move into areas previously dominated by small farmers, they force those farmers to buy their patented seeds and fertilizers - under pretense of higher yields, and under threats of lawsuits if they save or share the seeds. Every year, they're forced to buy more seeds and more chemicals from corporations - and when the promises of higher yields and higher incomes prove empty, farmers go bankrupt.
Compounding their corporate crimes, when Monsanto's patented seeds contaminate the non-GMO crops of small farmers (because the seeds drift across property lines) Monsanto routinely sues farmers for growing their patented seeds illegally, even though the seeds were actually unwanted trespassers. Further, the company has ruined the livelihoods of small farmers by harassing them for illegally growing patented seeds, even in cases where no patented seeds have been grown, either knowingly or by accident [http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-18563_162-4048288.html].
As Monsanto and others have expanded worldwide, into India, China [http://www.inderscience.com/offer.php?id=18348], Pakistan, and other countries, the effect on small farmers has been devastating. In India, for instance, after World Trade Organization policies forced the country in 1998 to open its seed sector to companies like Cargill, Monsanto and Syngenta, farmers quickly found themselves in debt to the biotech companies that forced them to buy corporate seeds and fertilizers and pesticides, destroying local economies. Hundreds of thousands of India's cotton farmers have committed suicide [http://www.huffingtonpost.com/vandana-shiva/from-seeds-of-suicide-to_b_192419.html].
And according to a Greenpeace report [http://www.greenpeace.org/seasia/ph/Global/seasia/report/2005/6/rpt-ge-bteconomics.pdf], poorer farmers in the Philippines were sold Monsanto's Bt corn as a "practical and ecologically sustainable solution for poor corn farmers everywhere to increase their yields" only to find the opposite was true: Bt corn did not control pests and was "not ecologically sustainable."
Which brings us to one more of the Council for Biotechnology Information's lies to kids: That agricultural biotechnology is good for the environment.
Study after study, over more than a decade, has warned us of just the opposite. Even the pro-biotech USDA has admitted that GE crops use more pesticides, not less than non-GE varieties. Genetic engineering results in evermore pesticides being dumped into the environment, destroying soil and water, human and animal health, and threatening the biodiversity of the planet.
How about telling kids instead that numerous reports, including one from the German Beekeepers Association [http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,473166,00.html], have linked genetically engineered Bt corn to the widespread disappearance of bees, or what is now referred to as Colony Collapse Disorder? And while we're at it, maybe we should remind kids of the Albert Einstein's quote: "If the bee disappeared off the surface of the globe then man would only have four years of life left. No more bees, no more pollination, no more plants, no more animals, no more man."
Maybe we should also tell them that glyphosate, the active ingredient in Monsanto's herbicide, Roundup, the most widely used herbicide in the world, kills Monarch butterflies, fish, and frogs, destroys soil fertility, and pollutes our waterways and drinking water.
The fact is, widespread use of Monsanto's Roundup in all agricultural and urban areas of the United States is destroying the environment, pure and simple. US Geological Survey studies released this month show that Roundup is now commonly found in rain and rivers in agricultural areas in the Mississippi River watershed [http://www.usgs.gov/newsroom/article.asp?ID=2909], where most applications are for weed control on GE corn, soybeans and cotton. Here's the real truth, from an article published this past week [http://www.infowars.com/monsantos-roundup-threatens-stability-of-global-food-supply/]: Monsanto's Roundup is actually threatening the crop-yielding potential of the entire biosphere. According to the article, new research published in the journal Current Microbiology highlights the extent to which "glyphosate is altering, and in some cases destroying, the very microorganisms upon which the health of the soil, and - amazingly - the benefits of raw and fermented foods as a whole, depend."


Lie #3: "Scientists are using biotechnology to grow foods that could help make people healthier." (page 11)
This is the perhaps the most outrageous lie of all. Telling kids that GE foods are more nutritious is tantamount to telling them Hostess cupcakes and Coca-Cola are health foods.
Genetic engineering - of human food and food for animals that humans eat - has been linked to a host of diseases and health issues, including auto-immune disorders, liver and kidney damage, nutritional deficiencies, allergies, accelerated aging, infertility, and birth defects.
There's a growing and alarming body of research indicating that GMO foods are unsafe, and absolutely no research whatsoever proving that they are safe. And yet the USDA and FDA continue to approve, and just this past month even agreed to speed up approval of these crops that scientists and physicians increasingly link to poor health [http://marcussamuelsson.com/news/department-of-agriculture-will-speed-up-approval-of-genetically-modified-crops].
Instead of force-feeding kids lies in bogus activity books, how about having them read some truthful articles?
The study Bt Toxin Kills Human Kidney Cells says Bt toxins are not "inert" on human cells, and may indeed be toxic, causing kidney damage and allergies observed in farmers and factory workers handling Bt crops. The article supports previous studies done on rats, showing that animals fed on three strains of GE corn made by Monsanto suffered signs of organ damage after only three months [http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/GM+food+can+damage+liver+and+kidneys/1/80590.html].
 Or how about this: "19 Studies Find That GMOs Aren't Up to Consumer Safety Protection Standards" which reports [http://www.occupymonsanto360.org/2012/03/12/19-studies-find-that-gmos-arent-up-to-consumer-safety-protection-standards/]:
[begin excerpt]
It is abundantly clear that both GMOs made to be resistant to herbicides (aka "Roundup Ready") and those made to produce insecticides have damaging impacts on the health of mammals who consume them, particularly in the liver and kidneys. We already know that from the trials of 90 days and less. In looking a little deeper into the info, we found a number of issues that point to a probable increased level of toxicity when these foods are consumed over the long term, including likely multi-generational effects.
[end excerpt]
Multi-generational effects. Eating GMO foods harms not only our health, and our kids' health - but quite possibly their kids, too - even if we stop eating them today.
In a recent report to the United Nations General Assembly Human Rights Council by Special Rapporteur on the right to food, Olivier De Schutter [http://www.srfood.org/images/stories/pdf/officialreports/20120306_nutrition_en.pdf], Schutter outlines the case for sustainable agricultural practices (the antithesis of industrial agribusiness, with its GE crops and heavy reliance on chemical fertilizers and pesticides). He also addresses the links between health and malnutrition. In the report, Schutter shows why undernutrition, micronutrient deficiency and overnutrition are different dimensions of malnutrition that must be addressed together through a life-course approach. From the report's summary:
[begin excerpt]
Existing food systems have failed to address hunger, and at the same time encourage diets that are a source of overweight and obesity that cause even more deaths worldwide than does underweight. A transition towards sustainable diets will succeed only by supporting diverse farming systems that ensure that adequate diets are accessible to all, that simultaneously support the livelihoods of poor farmers and that are ecologically sustainable.
[end excerpt]
Corporate greed plus a complicit government have allowed for the rampant poisoning of our food and environment, and the demise of sustainable agriculture practices - practices sorely needed if we are going to feed the world's population, and avoid a world health crisis. And we've exported the same misery and destruction to foreign countries far and wide.
Propaganda like the CBI's Look Closer at Biotechnology has brainwashed many of our kids into thinking that the biotech industry has people - not profits - in its best interests. The book's claims are laughable. But framing blatant lies as "science" for children in schools borders on criminal.
For parents and teachers out there, here's an alternate lesson plan. Because world hunger is a concern, because saving our planet does matter, and because better health is a worthy and achievable goal, let's ask our kids to think critically, instead of accepting at face value "information" attractively packaged by multinational corporations.
Don M. Huber, emeritus soil scientist of Purdue University puts it in terms everyone, kids included, can understand [http://thecalloftheland.wordpress.com/2011/03/29/latter-day-luther-nails-troubling-thesis-to-gm-farm-food-citadels/]. Huber talks about a range of key factors involved in plant growth, including sunlight, water, temperature, genetics, and nutrients taken up from the soil. "Any change in any of these factors impacts all the factors," he said. "No one element acts alone, but all are part of a system." "When you change one thing," he said, "everything else in the web of life changes in relationship."
This is what we should be teaching the future stewards of our planet.

2012-03-23 "Polluters Dump 226 Million Pounds of Toxins into U.S. Rivers" by Jennifer Mueller
[http://www.care2.com/causes/polluters-dump-226-million-pounds-of-toxins-into-u-s-rivers.html]
Industrial polluters dumped 226 million pounds of toxic chemicals in to U.S. waterways in 2010, according to a new report by Environment America. The group analyzed government data on industrial facilities to reveal total discharges by state and which U.S. rivers bear the heaviest toxic chemical burden.
Food and beverage manufacturing, which includes slaughterhouses and rendering plants, heavy metals manufacturing, chemical plants, and petroleum refineries were among the largest polluters. The biggest single polluter, according self-reported data to EPA’s Toxic Release Inventory, was AK Steel with nearly 30 million pounds of toxins into waterways in Indiana and Ohio.



Polluters in just the top 5 states were responsible for 40% of all toxins released into U.S. waterways in 2010.
New to the 2010 Toxics Release Inventory data is watershed discharge information, allowing Americans to know for the first time exactly how much pollution is being dumped into the rivers that provide drinking water and recreation for their communities.

The report, Wasting Our Waterways: Industrial Toxic Pollution and the Unfulfilled Promise of the Clean Water Act [http://www.environmentamerica.org/reports/ame/wasting-our-waterways-2012], did not compare actual discharges to legally permitted pollution discharges. Environment America explains: “States (who are primarily responsible for enforcing the law in most of the country)  have often been unwilling to tighten pollution limits on industrial dischargers and have often let illegal polluters get away with exceeding their permitted pollution levels without penalty or with only a slap on the wrist.”
Calling America’s waterways a “polluter’s paradise,” Environment America and its network of state-based environmental organizations are calling for:
* industrial facilities to reduce pollution by switching to less hazardous production processes, for
* the Obama administration to clearly extend Clean Water Act protections to all waterways, and for
* EPA and state agencies to tighten pollution permits and reduce legal discharges of toxic chemicals.
“The Clean Water Act’s original objective was to clean up all of America’s waterways by 1985–27 years ago,” said Rob Kerth, analyst for Frontier Group and co-author of the report. “Many people born in 1985 have kids of their own now, yet still millions of pounds of toxic chemicals are being dumped into our waterways.”