Below is the story and the link is in the title at the top as well as the full url at the bottom of this article. Of importance, particularly in Missouri, Michigan is a “Right to Farm” state. Since they have the “Right to Farm” Michigan small holders have been under more attacks by zoning and phenotype regulations that any other state that I know about. The “Right to Farm” very quickly becomes, “Zoning and Confiscation Rights for Government”. This seems to never happen to CAFO’s though. Please read and share this story:
Ray Swan owns a 70-acre farm in Erie Township, Michigan. He owns and collects antique farming equipment that he often uses on his property. Some residents don’t like looking at the antiques or the condition of his yard, however. Earlier this year, Erie Township decided to take Mr. Swan to court to force him to make his land more presentable. Swan has been told he needs to cut his grass and remove the garbage. The garbage they are referring to, Swan says, is his farming equipment.
“In the lawsuit it’s called ‘garbage,’ ‘refuse’ and ‘trash,’” Swan toldFarm World. “They wouldn’t give me the respect of calling them antiques. This is historical machinery; it’s not a junkyard and it’s not trash.”
The Erie Township farmer has until September 18 to remove his antique farm equipment from his 70-acre farm, or the township will come onto his farm, hold an auction, and sell the equipment they don’t feel should be on his property.
According to Township council meeting minutes, Mr. Swan tried to discuss the matter publicly at a council meeting in February. He does not use social media and can not spread the word the way other Michigan Farmers have when their township residents complained. Swan is not the only farmer in Michigan who has to battle neighbors’ complaints.
In July, an Air Force vet in Bay County had to fight for the right to raise chickens on his nine-acre farm. This summer, a Williamston Township farmer was held in contempt of court for failing to remove her livestock, citing her “Right To Farm” and apparent GAAMPs compliance.
Erie Township Supervisor Bill Frey told Farm World that Swan’s property has been a problem for the township for two years. The Erie Township Supervisor Frey said the farming equipment is “quite old. He has a lot of it sitting in his front yard. His grass isn’t mowed.”
A judge ruled that, at that time, Swan wasn’t protected under Michigan’s Right to Farm Act because he hasn’t proven that he was using the Michigan standards covered under the Generally Accepted Agriculture and Management Practices.
“The township said they’d allow one tractor, one disc and one sprayer for my operation,” Swan told Farm World. The judge sided with the township, except told the Erie Township farmer he could have three tractors for his 70-acre farm instead of just one.
Michigan Department of Agriculture and Rural Development (MDARD) official Tim Kwiakowski refused to talk with the journalist Kevin Walker about Swan’s case, citing confidentiality issues.
Erie Township has a website with contact information and township news. It also has the new Erie Township Master Plan uploaded. Adopted in 2012, the plan still places Swan’s property in an area zoned “Rural Agricultural.” The Master Plan states that it seeks to protect and maintain the culture of the township’s history and to actively encourage “the continuation of local farming operations and the long-term protection of farmland resources.”
The introduction to the Erie Township Master Plan explains surveyed residents mostly believed that “rural places represent history, tradition, family, culture and nature.” The summary states that the “one clear message” from the Erie Townships survey was that the rural character and historical farming atmosphere of Erie Township were exceptionally valued.
Sometimes one simply can’t wrap words around the stupidity being played out upon the global stage. Ok, maybe it isn’t actually stupidity. It is definitely conduct regardless of life. I know, maybe it’s NewSpeak. Quarantine now means fly infection everywhere. Sheesh.
In the research I have done on Ebola, it seems that the best things short of complete isolation to help prevent it are: oregano oil, general massive immune system boosters including probiotics, food grade hydrogen peroxide ingestion regimens, and hazmat suits. Prayer should be added as well. There may be lots of other things, and I strongly suggest that we all really begin to dig into how to best prevent this virus.
It has long been rumored that the Powers that Shouldn’t Be have been striving to weaponize Ebola for years. With the length of incubation and the lower than average kill rate, perhaps that goal has been achieved?
Here is the article admitting more than the four patients stated have been brought to the US via 10 flights. They say not all flights had exposed people. Incubation up to 21 days in length though, so….Can we believe it? Eegads.:
Ebola evacuations to US greater than previously known
An airplane transporting a doctor infected with the deadly Ebola in West Africa lands near Atlanta on Tuesday. …
An undisclosed number of people who’ve been exposed to the Ebola virus — not just the four patients publicly identified with diagnosed cases — have been evacuated to the U.S. by an air ambulance company contracted by the State Department.
“We moved a lot of other people who had an exposure event,” said Dent Thompson, vice president of Phoenix Air Group. “Many times these people are just fine, they just had an exposure. But you have to treat it as though the disease is present.”
How many exposed patients have been flown from West Africa to the U.S.? Thompson said medical privacy laws and his company’s contract with the State Department prevent him from revealing the figure.
“I’m not avoiding it,” Thompson told Yahoo News. “I’m just not allowed to talk about it.”
Five weeks ago, medical missionary Dr. Kent Brantly became the first Ebola patient to be treated in the U.S. He and fellow missionary Nancy Writebol were nursed back to health in a special isolation unit at Emory University Hospital in Atlanta and later released. Dr. Rick Sacra and an unidentified doctor who arrived on Tuesday are currently being treated in the U.S.
An ambulance carries American missionary Nancy Writebol from the airport to Atlanta’s Emory University Hospital …
The State Department confirmed the four known Ebola patient transports but couldn’t provide details on any exposure evacuations to the United States. Phoenix Air, they said, is under contract because of its expertise.
An unnamed State Department official said “every precaution is taken to move the patient safely and securely, to provide critical care en route, and to maintain strict isolation upon arrival in the United States.”
Thompson said Phoenix Air has flown 10 Ebola-related missions in the past six weeks.
“Not everything we do is [related to] a sick person,” he said, adding that the company has also flown supplies. “We do basically whatever needs to be done.”
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, which is operating an around-the-clock Ebola emergency operations center, did not immediately respond to an email seeking information about the exposure patient transports.
With multiple government and aid organizations trying to tackle the unprecedented epidemic, Thompson predicts his team will be flying more precautionary patients back to the U.S.
“There will be a certain number of people who, through no fault of their own, will have an exposure event, and they are immediately identified and immediately extracted,” he said.
Phoenix Air’s modified Gulfstream III jets are “literally intensive care units with wings,” Thompson said. He said even evacuees without a confirmed Ebola diagnosis are placed in an isolation chamber for the 12- to 14-hour flight from West Africa to the U.S.
“You can never, ever let your safety guards down,” he said.
The tentlike device installed on Phoenix Air’s planes when biological containment is required. (CDC/Reuters)
The Georgia-based air transport company got involved in the latest Ebola crisis when the Christian humanitarian group Samaritan’s Purse recruited it to evacuate Brantly and Writebol. The State Department was involved in the logistics, but the trips were funded by Samaritan’s Purse.
Since then, Thompson said, Phoenix Air has solely been under contract with the State Department.
“It became evident that we could no longer treat any of these flights as a private or commercial flight,” said Thompson, declining to divulge the specifics of the government contract.
Brantly, Writebol and the latest patient have been treated at Emory University in Atlanta. Last week, Sacra was flown to the Nebraska Medical Center in Omaha. Those hospitals, plus the National Institutes of Health in Bethesda, Maryland, and St. Patrick’s Hospital in Missoula, Montana, have specially-equipped biocontainment units built in collaboration with the CDC. However, the CDC has said any U.S. hospital following infection control recommendations and isolating a patient in a private room is capable of safely managing an infected patient.
Thompson declined to say where patients who have just been exposed to Ebola have been flown to in the U.S.
“They all go to a hospital and they monitor them,” he said. “If they do develop it, then they treat them. And, fingers crossed, they’re going to walk out the way Brantly and Nancy Writebol walked out.”
This seems the acme of foolishness to me. I think the best thing to do is to airdrop supplies and medical equipment in and not put more people into the area. It isn’t at all that I am heartless and have no desire to help those affected, but the long incubation period and the general tenacity of this strain seems to indicate that keeping away and actually quarantine the region while maintaining communication and assistance is the best thing to do. Here’s the article about this, and how bad it is:
Ebola outbreak: call to send in military to west Africa to help curb epidemic
Head of Médecins sans Frontières says the world is ‘losing the battle’ as cases and deaths continue to surge
Medical workers of the John F Kennedy hospital of Monrovia show the aprons they have been wearing during a strike. Photograph: Dominique Faget/AFP/Getty Images
Military teams should be sent to west Africa immediately if there is to be any hope of controlling the Ebola epidemic, doctors on the frontline told the United Nations on Tuesday, painting a stark picture of health workers dying, patients left without care and infectious bodies lying in the streets.
The international president of Médecins sans Frontières (MSF), Dr Joanne Liu, told member states that although alarm bells had been ringing for six months, the response had been too little, too late and no amount of vaccinations and new drugs would be able to prevent the escalating disaster.
“Six months into the worst Ebola epidemic in history, the world is losing the battle to contain it,” Liu said.
“In west Africa, cases and deaths continue to surge,” she said. “Riots are breaking out. Isolation centres are overwhelmed. Health workers on the frontline are becoming infected and are dying in shocking numbers.
“Others have fled in fear, leaving people without care for even the most common illnesses. Entire health systems have crumbled.”
She said Ebola treatment centres had been reduced to places where people went to die alone.
“It is impossible to keep up with the sheer number of infected people pouring into facilities. In Sierra Leone, infectious bodies are rotting in the streets,” she said. “Rather than building new Ebola care centres in Liberia, we are forced to build crematoria.”
The World Health Organisation estimated last week that 20,000 people in Guinea, Liberia and Sierra Leone could be infected even if the outbreak is brought under control within three months. Médecins sans Frontières has doubled its staff of volunteer doctors in the region but is unable to cope.
The epidemic can be stopped, said Liu, but only if governments send in biohazard teams and equipment.
“Many of the member states represented here today have invested heavily in biological threat response,” she said at the UN. “You have a political and humanitarian responsibility to immediately utilise these capabilities in Ebola-affected countries.
“To curb the epidemic, it is imperative that states immediately deploy civilian and military assets with expertise in biohazard containment. I call upon you to dispatch your disaster response teams, backed by the full weight of your logistical capabilities. This should be done in close collaboration with the affected countries. Without this deployment, we will never get the epidemic under control.”
Money is no longer the main issue, according to MSF, and voluntary help is not enough. Skilled and well equipped teams are needed on the ground.
Governments should send in military and civilian experts who can increase the number of isolation centres and deploy mobile laboratories that can be used to diagnose more cases.
Military-style operations are required to establish dedicated air bridges to move personnel and equipment around west Africa and a regional network of field hospitals must be built to treat medical staff who are infected or suspected of being infected. About a tenth of the deaths have been among health workers.
“We must also address the collapse of state infrastructure,” Liu said. “The health system in Liberia has collapsed. Pregnant women experiencing complications have nowhere to turn.
“Malaria and diarrhoea, easily preventable and treatable diseases, are killing people. Hospitals need to be reopened and newly created.”
Lastly, she said, there must be a change of approach by affected countries. “Coercive measures, such as laws criminalising the failure to report suspected cases, and forced quarantines, are driving people underground.
“This is leading to the concealment of cases, and is pushing the sick away from health systems. These measures have only served to breed fear and unrest, rather than contain the virus.”
John Tugbeh, spokesman for the strikers at John F Kennedy hospital in Monrovia, said the nurses would not return to work until they are supplied with “personal protective equipment (PPEs)”, the clothing that guards against infectious diseases.
“From the beginning of the Ebola outbreak we have not had any protective equipment to work with. As a result, so many doctors got infected by the virus. We have to stay home until we get the PPEs,” he said.
The surgical section at John F Kennedy hospital is the only trauma referral centre in Liberia. The hospital closed temporarily in July owing to the infections and deaths of an unspecified number of health workers who had been treating Ebola patients.
“We need proper equipment to work with [and] we need better pay because we are going to risk our lives,” Tugbeh said.
The UN has also warned of serious food shortages as a result of restrictions on movement in the Ebola-hit countries. “Access to food has become a pressing concern for many people in the three affected countries and their neighbours,” said Bukar Tijani, the UN Food and Agricultural Organisation regional representative for Africa.
“With the main harvest now at risk and trade and movements of goods severely restricted, food insecurity is poised to intensify in the weeks and months to come.”
A UK Government spokesman said: “Britain is working with agencies like the World Health Organisation and Médecins Sans Frontières to prevent the spread of this deadly disease. A wide range of further options are under discussion to contain this outbreak.”
Dr Paul Cosford, director of health protection at Public Health England, said: “We will continue to offer every support to the international efforts to contain and manage the Ebola outbreak led by the World Health Organisation, working closely with government colleagues, and partners including MSF and Unicef.”
• This article was amended on 3 September 2014. An earlier version said the World Health Organisation estimated last week that 20,000 people could have been infected with Ebola over three months. In fact it said 20,000 people could be infected even if the outbreak is brought under control within three months.
I don’t often write about truly personal issues. It seems to me that Facebook has taken the lead on sharing everything personal with the world at large. However, over the course of the past year, I have been dealing with a major problem and thought that in the interest of saving someone else from such a nightmare, I would air my mattress troubles out for the world to see.
Our mattress is old and my husband isn’t happy with it. However, if you haven’t noticed, things are expensive! One day he called me up and asked if it would be okay for him to spend around $130 on a “hypoallergenic” memory foam topper for our bed. It so happened that it was actually okay to spend that amount on that day, so I said “Sure!”. And so began the year of lacking sleep, not being able to breathe and drama, for me.
This topper was allowed to air out for two days as recommended and we put it on and it swallowed you whole. It actually didn’t smell as many people complain about with these memory foam things, and it wasn’t too terribly hot so I thought we’d be okay.
Guess what? I was wrong. Really, seriously, dangerously wrong.
After about two weeks, I had sinuses that simply wouldn’t clear up. You know the kind. You lay down and your only option is to be a mouth breather because your head is so full of stuff that there isn’t any chance you can breathe through your nose. Due to colds and seasonal allergies, this didn’t seem like it was going to be an ongoing issue for me. Just one of those blips in time that you take as part of the normal human condition and move on without a lot of thought.
A month into having this mattress pad, after sleeping in the recliner who knows how many times, and getting on the internet looking up symptoms for COPD and why I was getting heart palpitations and bronchial closures accompanied with incredible mental fog from not being able to sleep, I finally hit on problems with memory foam toppers. Oh my goodness. It was me to a “T”. My heart was flitting about, I couldn’t breathe, I had a cough and sinus drainage into my lungs, I felt like I had mild vertigo most of the time. What was the worst news to me was that many people took longer than six months to get over the symptoms from this “hypoallergenic” memory foam nightmare.
The really weird thing is that I am now allergic to another thing. Here’s my list of allergies, MSG, polyester, mold and now memory foam.
So, after removing the thing and putting it in the spare room because it is just difficult to throw $130 dollars away, I thought I would be on the upswing fairly soon. Ha! It didn’t happen. The heart palpitations slowed down after a month without the foam on the bed, but the sinus issue was ongoing. The vertigo feeling was lessened as well. But I still laid down and couldn’t breathe.
About four months after this, with the continuing sinus issues, I noticed black mold on the ceiling in the spare room where we have a plumbing chase. “Oh flipping wonderful!” So we opened the chase and fixed the little leak and let it dry out. Thinking that things would alright since we fixed the leak, we went on about our normal business. But I still couldn’t breathe.
Then we had an amazingly wet spring. Mold counts were out of this world on the allergen charts. I couldn’t breathe, I couldn’t sleep, I had no energy and felt like garbage ALL the time.
After countless more sleepless nights, while my husband slept soundly and unaffected by anything other than our crappy mattress, I actually had to use an inhaler to breathe a few times! Never had to do that before, and I was really upset about it, too.
So I bought a dehumidifier, he removed the entire plumbing chase and sprayed all remaining drywall with bleach solution to kill mold there, I researched air cleaners and got two of them to remove the mold from the air. And that actually helped!
Now, we are STILL looking for a mattress, and it’s next to impossible to find anything that doesn’t have latex or memory foam in it. For about $2,000 you can get a all cotton innerspring mattress, but there’s a delivery charge on top of that. Our current mattress is about 12 years old and it wasn’t top of the line at the time. But it doesn’t have memory foam! There are loads of mattresses out there that say they are “hypoallergenic”, but I flatly disbelieve those claims when they use latex or foam as major components in their construction.
So I found a cotton futon mattress that only had boric acid used in it because of federal regulations. I bought that, but the divets that hold it together are too deep and hit all the wrong spots. For my husband, it makes him feel like he’s been run over by a truck because it’s too hard. So we had to take that off and put the old standby back on the bed. So the quest continued…
In Europe, you can buy natural wool mattresses for around $1500. Then each year a guy needs to come out and refluff the mattress for you. And, thankfully, or unfortunately, we don’t live in Europe. Here, you can find some cotton with wool, but as I said, it’s a couple grand for those and you have exceptionally limited choices.
We looked into possibly making our own mattress, but that is a pretty daunting task as well. Not only do you have to grow most of your own food now to know you aren’t eating disgusting things that aren’t food, but now you have to make your own mattresses as well? Sheesh.
It seems to me that there may be a plot afoot to take good, healthy natural sleep out of the human equation in this country. Like “Too bad for those of you who drive cars that cost less than these mattresses!” Maybe there is room in the market place for someone inclined to make non toxic mattresses available to those who don’t have Swiss bank accounts?
What we are thinking of doing is taking the cotton futon mattress I found and removing buttons that hold the upholstery together and then buying a down topper and a wool topper for the thing. If this works, we should come in around $700 for a mattress that doesn’t kill you with “hypoallergenic” chemicals.
I’ll let you know if it works. Of course we have to get another $400 in line to try it, but that will happen in time. Meanwhile, I hope you sleep well, and whatever you do, do NOT buy a memory foam topper! I might wish that on the federal government, but I wouldn’t wish it on anyone decent at all.
I just found this article below this morning. After reading it all the way through, I think the greatest danger here is the patenting. What is interesting to me is that they are not talking about inserting genes from other species into the cattle DNA, but removing a segment of the natural DNA and inserting a segment from polled cattle directly into it. You can achieve this through breeding the old fashioned way, which I think will prove to be less likely to cause unforeseen problems that may not be apparent immediately. Anyway, I thought it was intriguing and wanted to make sure that more people saw it. Happy to hear your thoughts!
Can genome-editing technology revive the idea of genetically modified livestock?
Four years ago, Scott Fahrenkrug saw an ABC News segment about the dehorning of dairy cows, a painful procedure that makes the animals safer to handle. The shaky undercover video showed a black-and-white Holstein heifer moaning and bucking as a farmhand burned off its horns with a hot iron.
Fahrenkrug, a molecular geneticist then at the University of Minnesota, thought he had a way to solve the problem. He could create cows without horns. He could save farmers money. And by eliminating the dairy industry’s most unpleasant secret, he might even score a public relations success for genetic engineering.
The technology Fahrenkrug believes could do all this is called genome editing (see “Genome Surgery” and “Genome Editing”). A fast, precise new way of altering DNA, it’s been sweeping through biotechnology labs. Researchers have used it to change the genes of mice, zebrafish, and monkeys, and it is being tested as way to treat human diseases like HIV (see “Can Gene Therapy Cure HIV?”).
With livestock, gene editing offers some extraordinary possibilities. At his startup, Recombinetics, located in St. Paul, Minnesota, Fahrenkrug thinks he can create blue-ribbon dairy bulls possessing traits not normally found in those breeds but present in other cattle, such as lack of horns or resistance to particular diseases. Such “molecular breeding,” he says, would achieve the same effects as nature might, only much faster. In short, an animal could be edited to have the very best genes its species can offer.
That could upend the global livestock industry. Companies could patent these animals just as they do genetically modified soybeans or corn. Entrepreneurs are also ready to challenge the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, which has never approved a GMO food animal. They say gene editing shouldn’t be regulated if it’s used to merely swap around traits within a species. “We’re talking about genes that already exist in a species we already eat,” says Fahrenkrug.
The use of the technology remains experimental and far from the food chain. But some large breeding companies are starting to invest. “There may be an opportunity for a different public acceptance dialogue and different regulations,” says Jonathan Lightner, R&D chief of the U.K. company Genus, which is the world’s largest breeder of pigs and cattle and has paid for some of Recombinetics’ laboratory research. “This isn’t a glowing fish. It’s a cow that doesn’t have to have its horns cut off.”
To date, GMO food animals have been a complete bust. After the first mice genetically engineered with viral DNA appeared in the 1970s, a parade of other modified animals followed, including sheep that grow extra wool thanks to a mouse gene, goats whose udders made spider silk, and salmon that mature twice as quickly as normal. But such transgenics—animals incorporating genes from other species—mostly never made it off experimental farms.
Opponents of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) gathered millions of signatures to stop “frankenfoods,” and the FDA has held off approving such animals as food. AquaBounty Technologies, the company that made the fast-growing transgenic salmon, has spent 18 years and $70 million trying to get the fish cleared. Two years ago, the University of Guelph, in Ontario, euthanized its herd of “enviropigs,” engineered with an E. coli gene so they pooped less phosphorus, after giving up hope of convincing regulators.
Genome editing can also be used to create transgenic animals. But cows edited to be hornless would not have DNA from a different species, just DNA from a different breed of cattle. That is what entrepreneurs hope will create a regulatory loophole. The FDA’s regulations on genetically engineered animals, issued in 2009, didn’t anticipate gene editing and, in Fahrenkrug’s opinion, may not cover it.
In response to questions from MITTechnology Review, the FDA agreed that its rules “addressed the technology at the time.” But the agency says it reserves the right to regulate gene editing, too. “We are carefully considering the appropriate regulatory approach for products made using this technology but have not reached any decisions,” said agency spokeswoman Theresa Eisenman.
To make hornless dairy cows, Fahrenkrug says, he looked up the genetic sequence that naturally causes Angus cattle, a beef variety, to lack horns. Following nature’s no-horns recipe, he used a gene-editing method called TALENs in his lab to introduce it into skin cells from a horned Holstein bull. In total, he deleted 10 DNA letters and, in their place, added 212. Some of those cells were then turned into embryos through cloning and used to impregnate several cows. Fahrenkrug is expecting the first of several hornless calves to be born within a few weeks. He declined to say where they were being kept, citing the risk of sabotage by animal-rights or anti-GMO activists.
Scared to Death
Any genetic tinkering with the food supply could arouse opposition, but Fahrenkrug hopes the vision of a hornless cow could make people see things his way. Animal-rights campaigners hate GMOs. But they hate dehorning more. Farmers do it only because they have to. Douglas Keeth, an investor in Recombinetics, says his great-grandmother was gored to death by a dairy cow. “When I was a young man working on a farm, we’d dehorn cattle with mechanical means. You do 100 steers and, well, it’s a bloody mess,” he says. “You wouldn’t want to show that on TV.”
Although not all cattle have horns, most Holsteins do. According to the Holstein Association USA, all 30 of the top-rated Holstein bulls in the U.S. have horns. Semen from these champion bulls, which are prized for fathering offspring that produce titanic amounts of milk, is frozen and shipped around the globe. After more than a century of selective breeding, the average dairy cow in the U.S. produces 23,000 pounds of milk a year (compared with about 5,000 pounds for an ordinary cow).
With Holsteins smashing milk records, any effort to mix in useful new traits by mating is challenging. That’s because crossing a record milker with a lesser animal will dilute its pedigree, says Lightner, whose company shipped $177 million worth of frozen bull semen last year. It can take several generations of crosses to make a true milk champion again.
Gene editing, by contrast, is fast and precise. Last year, working with the Roslin Institute and Texas A&M University, Fahrenkrug easily created Brazilian Lenore cattle with increased muscle mass. He did that by adding to Lenore embryos a muscle-boosting mutation that occurs naturally in breeds like Belgian Blues, though it had never before been seen in rangy, heat-tolerant Lenores. The edit consists of deleting 11 DNA letters from a single gene, thereby cutting production of a muscle-regulating protein called myostatin. Lightner says such feats are why Genus has started underwriting gene-editing research. “We haven’t realized the opportunity for genetic engineering in animals to any degree,” he says. “But these new approaches that let us move traits around could be transformational.”
Fahrenkrug’s ideas have grabbed the attention of dairy farmers, too. The technology “is very cool,” says Tom Lawlor, head of R&D for the Holstein Association USA. But he says milk producers are afraid of genetic engineering. “The technology definitely looks promising and seems to work, but we would enter into it slowly as opposed to rapidly for fear the consumer would get the wrong idea,” he says. “We get scared to death, because our product is milk, and it’s wholesome.”
Conventional breeding has also become far more precise thanks to DNA tests. By July of this year, an international collaboration calling itself the “1,000 Bull Genomes Project” had decoded the DNA of 234 dairy bulls, including Swiss Fleckviehs, Holsteins, and Jerseys. Breeders can now accurately size up an animal’s genes at birth. One result is that a few hornless bulls are already approaching top-ranked status. That leaves Lawlor unsure if there’s much of a need for gene editing.
In January, Fahrenkrug filed a patent application laying claim to any animal whose genes are edited to remove their horns. The threat of cattle patents has alarmed some farmers already distressed by seed patents. “They could take semen from my bull, gene-edit it, patent it, and the farmer will get totally screwed,” says Roy MacGregor, who breeds hornless cattle in Peterborough, Ontario. “They should not be allowed to.”
Anti-GMO campaigners also won’t have to look far for reasons to criticize gene editing. There are easy targets, like a strategy Fahrenkrug conceived to prevent cattle from reaching sexual maturity. That may make it quicker to fatten them for slaughter. It would also allow gene-editing companies to keep selling animals without the risk of “uncontrolled breeding of the animals by the buyers,” asanother of Recombinetics’ patent applications puts it.
It’s possible, even probable, that cautious regulators, activists, and commercial challenges will keep products from gene-edited animals off supermarket shelves for years. Maybe forever. But what’s not slowing down is the advance of gene-editing technology. “People will say to me, ‘You realize this changes everything, don’t you?’ Because it does,” says Fahrenkrug. “The genome is information. And this is information technology. We have gone from being able to read the genome to being able to write it.”
As expected, there will be a recount on this extremely close, and deeply controversial, amendment to the Missouri Constitution. Here’s a press release about this:
August 27th, 2014
JEFFERSON CITY – Missouri’s Food for America, the Missouri Farmers Union, and the Missouri Rural Crisis Center, the central opponents to Amendment 1, the deceptive “Right to Farm Amendment,” are officially calling for a recount of the August 5th primary election results. The Amendment narrowly passed by 2490 votes, out of nearly 1 million cast, a margin of .25%.
Former Senator Wes Shoemyer, of Monroe County, the President of Missouri’s Food For America has been a vocal opponent of Amendment since it’s approval by the legislature. “We are talking about less than a quarter of percent of all votes cast” said Shoemyer. “With such a close margin, we owe it, not just to all the volunteers and organizations who put in countless hours fighting for Missouri’s family farmers, but also to the 497,091 people who voted “no” on August 5th.”
“Right now, we are at a statistical tie. Missouri voters deserve a fully transparent and accountable recount process that guarantees that every vote has been counted and that the integrity of the democratic process has been upheld,” said Rhonda Perry, a farmer from Howard County and Program Director of the Missouri Rural Crisis Center.
“With the future of Missouri’s farmland and rural economy at stake, we ought to be sure every vote was counted correctly,” said Richard Oswald, President of the Missouri Farmers Union. “With such a close outcome, a change in just 1 or 2 votes per precinct could sway the outcome.”
As most everyone knows, Amendment 1, Missouri’s MegaAg Protection Racket, or Monsanto Protection Act, barely passed. It’s my understanding that there is going to be a recount on that amendment to Missouri’s Constitution. Personally, I think there needs to be more than a recount, but I will save that for another day.
Despite the assertions that Monsanto and genetically modified organisms in general are gaining “world wide acceptance”, the truth is that many nations are doing all they can to ban these abominations of nature. Below is an article about Mexico and Monsanto’s Round Up Ready Soy…A little “Yeah!” for those who want to eat clean food.
Just one small comment here. I find it increasingly odd that I am often in agreement on a topic with organizations that are so far left of where I am politically. In the case I am addressing at the moment, that group is Greenpeace. To be clear, I am a massive proponent of private property owner’s rights. Staunchly opposed to corporations posing as “individuals” and against consolidation, contraction and restriction of access to markets for farmers growing real food. I am not a “greenie weenie”, but I do believe that we were put here by our Creator to be stewards of the land and His creation and not to rape, pillage and plunder the creation. We certainly are not called to change the genetic structure of life and create abominations of natural species by mutating them in a lab.
Evidence convinced judge of threat posed to honey production in Yucatán – but firm will almost certainly appeal against ruling
A small group of beekeepers in Mexico has inflicted a blow on biotech giant Monsanto, which has halted the company’s ambitions to plant thousands of hectares of soybeans genetically modified to resist the company’s pesticide Roundup.
A district judge in the state of Yucatán last month overturned a permit issued to Monsanto by Mexico’s agriculture ministry, Sagarpa, and environmental protection agency, Semarnat, in June 2012 that allowed commercial planting of Roundup-ready soybeans.
The permit authorised Monsanto to plant its seeds in seven states, over more than 253,000 hectares (625,000 acres), despite protests from thousands of Mayan farmers and beekeepers, Greenpeace, the Mexican National Commission for the Knowledge and Use of Biodiversity, the National Commission of Natural Protected Areas and the National Institute of Ecology.
In withdrawing the permit, the judge was convinced by the scientific evidence presented about the threats posed by GM soy crops to honey production in the Yucatán peninsula, which includes Campeche, Quintana Roo and Yucatán states. Co-existence between honey production and GM soybeans is not possible, the judge ruled.
Mexico is the world’s six biggest producer and third largest exporter of honey. About 25,000 families on the Yucatán peninsula depend on honey production. This tropical region produces about 40% of the country’s honey, almost all of which is exported to the EU. This is not small change: in 2011, the EU imported $54m (£32m) worth of Mexican honey.
The concerns are multiple. Roundup-ready crops – soybeans, corn, canola, sugar beets, cotton and alfalfa – have been manipulated to be resistant to glyphosate, the active ingredient in Roundup.
The ruling barred honey derived from a GM crop unapproved for human consumption – which includes some soy and other animal feeds – from sale in the EU. Honey with more than 0.9% of GM pollen (from an approved GM food) must be labelled as containing GM ingredients and cannot be marketed as an organic product. Some countries, including Germany, reject honey that contains any GM pollen.
A small study conducted in Campeche, where about 10,000 hectares of GM soybeans were planted after the permit was approved in 2012, found GM pollen in some honey samples destined for the European market. This, say the authors, threatens the local honey industry and contradicts the position taken by Sagarpa and industry groups that soybeans are not visited or pollinated by bees searching for food because they can self-pollinate.
The Monsanto ruling was commended by the respected national newspaper La Jornada, which accused the Mexican government of ignoring widespread concerns over GM and forcing those opponents to fight it out in court with powerful multinational companies. The government’s stated ambition of eliminating hunger is incompatible with its decisions to increasingly allow multinational companies such as Monsanto to introduce GM crops, the paper’s editorial concluded.
Central to the ruling was the Mexican constitution, specifically the government’s obligation to fully consult indigenous communities before making any major decision about what happens, including what is grown, on their territory. The judge ordered planting to stop and gave Sagarpa six months to carry out full and proper consultations with indigenous farmers – which it should have done before the permit was granted in 2012.
These two judgments have set a precedent that will help farmers, campaigners and environmentalists take local legal action against the rollout of GM soy and corn, which the federal government is sanctioning without consultation and against experts’ advice.
But this is a high-stakes game to play, in which indigenous communities are being forced to fight their own government and multinational corporations with multimillion-dollar legal departments, simply to have their constitutional rights honoured and protect their traditional ways of farming and living.
So while a third victory in Chiapas, where a similar case is pending, could soon follow, this is almost certainly only round one. Monsanto will probably appeal against the decision to a higher court.
The North American Free Trade Agreement, criticised by some for crippling small-scale Mexican farming, is not on the side of the beekeepers. This David and Goliath battle is about so much more than honey.