Barbara H. Peterson on December 18th, 2014

Julian Rose

Julian Rose

Farm Wars

“What emerges is an understanding of TTIP as the political project of a transatlantic corporate and political elite which, on the unfounded promise of increased trade and job creation, will attempt to reverse social and environmental regulatory protections, redirect legal rights from citizens to corporations, and consolidate US and European global leadership in a changing world order.” (Seattle to Brussels Network, Kim Bizzarri)

A key element of this Transatlantic Trade Agreement, but only one of hundreds of highly controversial proposals, is the move to deregulate the status currently accorded to imports of GM seeds and plants for cultivating in European soils.

ttip-3A determined effort by all of us, who care about real food and real farming, will be needed to stop one of the most insidious attempts yet to end Europe’s widespread resistance to genetically modified organisms. In particular, the use of GM seeds in European agriculture, leading to genetically modified crops being grown in areas that have, up until now, successfully resisted the GM corporate invasion.

The EU has so far licensed just one GM maize variety (MON 810) to be grown within its territories, and one potato variety (Amflora) for industrial starch production. Up until now, the EU has acted according to a largely restrictive trade practice concerning GM and other controversial food products due to major public pressure, as well as under a broad EU ruling termed ‘the precautionary principle’.

All that could be about to go out the window under current negotiations between the USA and the European Commission to ratify a new trade agreement known TTIP, the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership.

The objective of this ‘partnership’ is to facilitate far going corporate control of the international market place and to prize-open the mostly closed (but not locked) European door on GM crops and seeds. Read the rest of this entry »

Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

Barbara H. Peterson on December 17th, 2014

I received 9 files, ranging from 67-293 pages. Most were the actual studies, two were assesments of other studies. I do not believe I received all of the studies submitted to the EPA, and will be asking for the full set of documents. What I did receive however, in my opinion, is reason enough not to re register glyphosate.

The first study I open, is a 96 hour study on oysters..and it concludes that although in 4 days there were no oyster deaths, the majority of the oysters were “closed and not feeding”. That is equivalent to a human in a coma! Are you kidding me? This is supposed to prove glyphosate is safe for sea life?

These studies, even in their small scope and short duration show that glyphosate should not be re registered. It’s not sound science to see these as showing safety by any scope of the imagination and in addition this mother, for one, would prefer to be better safe than sorry than to feed my kid a chemical that has most oysters “closed and not feeding” after 4 days. It’s hard enough to feed my kids, Thank you very much. I chose organic.


Tags: , , , , , ,

Barbara H. Peterson on December 15th, 2014

Farm Wars wants to know! Is labeling really an effective solution to the fight against GMOs and their pesticides?


camel nose gmo

I think not, and am issuing the following challenge to all those who say that it is!

GMO Labeling Challenge: I challenge everyone who reads this page to ask your friends the next time you see them eating, what the ingredients are in the food they are putting in their mouths. All of the ingredients, not just one or two. Chances are they do not know. Then ask yourself, after conducting this experiment, just how effective a deterrent is labeling? ‘As long as it tastes good, who cares what’s on the label. If the FDA approved it, it must be okay.’ That is the most popular attitude. If I am wrong about this, prove it.

Here is a printable form that you can use to record the results. Just click on the PDF linked below, download and print it out. For each person that answers, place a mark next to the answer. To share your answers with Farm Wars, just use the electronic form located near the bottom of the right sidebar of this page, or simply respond to this post. You can vote as many times as it takes to record your findings, but the page will need to be refreshed each time.

I will be recording the answers all through the holiday season, and beyond. Good luck, and happy hunting!

Click here:

Farm Wars GMO Labeling Challenge


Tags: , , , , , ,

Barbara H. Peterson on December 14th, 2014

Dusty Dan Chemical Treadmill

Tags: , , , , , ,

Barbara H. Peterson on December 14th, 2014

Tags: , , , , , , ,

Barbara H. Peterson on December 12th, 2014

monsanto world of future

Jon Rappoport

No More Fake News

As my readers know, I’m not a fan of GMO labeling. The real route to victory has always been banning GMOs.

Ban, not label.

But I’m also not a fan of vote fraud. Which is what just happened in Oregon, where a recount of a very close election turned into a criminal act.

In November, Prop 92, which would have mandated labeling GMO food products in the state, went down to defeat by 800 votes.

That razor-thin margin triggered an automatic recount, by law.

During the recount, 4600 ballots were thrown out, because the signatures on those ballots didn’t match the signatures on the voters’ registration cards.

Oregon does elections by mail, so matching signatures is the way to prevent cheating.

When the 4600 ballots were rejected, lawyers for Prop 92 went to court to protest. They stated that some of these rejected voters never received notification that they had to provide new signatures. Other voters might have been out of town and never knew what was going on. And in general, voters were never informed that their signatures had to match.

Judge Kantor denied the assertions and allowed the recount to continue, minus the 4600 ballots.

The Prop 92 people just conceded the election. Read the rest of this entry »

Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,