Tuesday, 23 June 2009

Are you having a Wheatless Wednesday this week?

As has been pointed out before - markets do respond to consumer pressure.

With biotech giants like Monsanto constantly (and often successfully) lobbying government to support widespread introduction of genetically modified and perpetually patented seed, now is the time to think about how one might oppose these greedy multinationals.
One can urge the local supermarket to stock food types that are guaranteed to be GM free, one can avoid produce or products which originate with companies known to purchase GM ingredients and one can decide to actively boycott a cropping cereal into which Monsanto et al are attempting to introduce genetically modified seed.

So, anyone for a Wheatless Wednesday?


Statement of Australian, Canadian and US Farmer, Environmental and Consumer Organizations

June 1, 2009

Summary Statement:

In light of our existing experience with genetic engineering, and recognizing the global consumer rejection of genetically engineered wheat, we restate our definitive opposition to GE wheat and our commitment to stopping the commercialization of GE traits in our wheat crops. We are committed to working with farmers, civil society groups and Indigenous peoples across the globe as we travel the road towards global food sovereignty.

Statement in Full:

In the interest of reiterating the decisive global rejection of genetically engineered (GE) wheat, culminating in Monsanto's 2004 withdrawal of requests to the Canadian and U.S. governments for commercialization of their GE wheat; and in the interest of laying to rest the attempts by Monsanto and other biotechnology corporations to introduce genetically engineered wheat, the undersigned organizations issue the following joint statement:

1. Wheat is an ancient grain that is vital for meeting the nutritional needs of many societies and has deep religious significance in many cultures. Wheat is one of three staple crop plants (the other two are rice and maize) that account for two-thirds of the diet of the world's population. Over centuries of cultivation, farmers have developed a tremendous diversity of wheat varieties, many of which are adapted to the soil and climate conditions of certain regions of the world. These locally-bred varieties are critical to ensuring local food supplies during times of weather-related disasters. In Australia, Canada, and the US, farmers and public scientists have worked collectively with this diversity to develop varieties adapted to local conditions and suited to relevant markets. Multinational seed companies have played an insignificant role in fundamental wheat seed development in these countries or anywhere else in the world.

2. The remarkable achievements in wheat breeding that farmers and scientists have managed over generations have not involved genetic engineering or patenting. While farmers and conventional breeders continue to lead the way in innovation with wheat, there are currently no genetically engineered traits in the pipeline for wheat that promise basic agronomic improvements. In reality, the only GE trait in wheat for which approval has been sought is for tolerance to the herbicide glyphosate. This trait is not designed to increase yields, but to simplify herbicide application. Not only does this technology contribute nothing to feeding the world, genetic engineering is a direct threat to global food security. Genetic engineering can and does lead to contamination of seed varieties, and poses a decisive threat to organic farming and the production of crop varieties bred specifically for local conditions. Moreover, the introduction of GE wheat would put the wheat seed supply in the hands of a small number of multinational corporations, as has happened with the introduction of GE soybeans, GE corn and GE canola. During the recent food crisis, these companies used their oligopolistic positions to dramatically increase the price of seeds and agrochemicals. Farmers planting wheat in the Australia, Canada and the US were less affected by these price increases because they were free to save seeds and had access to public varieties. Monsanto, the world's largest producer of GE seeds, increased its profits by 120% in 2008. It should also be noted that since the introduction of GE crops in 1996, the number of people going hungry in the world has ballooned from an estimated 800 million to over 1 billion.

3. Rather than the area of wheat production decreasing due to competition from GE crops, a March 2009 Statistics Canada survey of farmers in western Canada found that farmers plan to increase acreage of wheat, barley and peas, crops for which there are no GE varieties and where plant breeding is primarily in the public sector. The survey also revealed that farmers intend to cut back on acres planted to canola seed, which is mainly GE in Canada, in order to decrease production costs. Additionally, there is no evidence to substantiate the claim that GE crop varieties increase yields.

4. Plant breeders and farmers have for too long narrowly focused on economies of scale and higher yields. This has resulted in higher input costs and lower net income for farmers. Higher yields have come at a high cost economically, as well as environmentally, because high yielding crops tend to require more fertilizers and chemical inputs. Improved crop quality is more likely than bigger yields to provide higher realized net incomes for farmers. Higher quality wheat can be achieved efficiently and accessibly through conventional plant breeding, and this is where support for research needs to be located.

5. Genetic engineering is a highly imprecise technology. GE crops are inadequately regulated by governments that rely on corporate data rather than public, peer reviewed science. Complex questions relating to the effects of GE crops on soil health, non-target insects, and human health remain understudied. Over 10 years of experience with GE crops has exposed a convincing record of high levels of irreversible contamination and corporate control over seeds as well as continued scientific uncertainty. Additionally, research from wheat organizations (Canadian Wheat Board and Australian Wheat Board) has indicated very strong market rejection of GE wheat. Commercial GE crops have so far been limited to crops used primarily for feed, oil and fibre and have thus not been subjected to national labelling requirements in many countries. GE wheat, however, would primarily be used for human consumption and food products derived from GE wheat would be labelled as GE in many countries across the world. Additionally, if GE wheat is released commercially, contamination would be inevitable and markets would view all wheat produced from these areas as GE unless proven to be non-GE. Farmers growing GE wheat will take on all of the responsibilities, costs and liabilities, with little available legal recourse to recover their losses.

6. Private seed companies are not investing in wheat research because of competition from strong public plant breeding programs and the desire and capacity of farmers to save wheat seeds from year to year. The main reason why seed companies want to introduce GE wheat is so that, by means of gene patents, they can stop farmers from saving seeds. The introduction of patents into wheat breeding will destroy the collective heritage of plant breeding for wheat and erode the strong public breeding programmes for wheat in the Canada, Australia and the US which have always generated impressive returns through minimal public investments and/or farmer contributions. Additionally, in February 2009, 26 top US corn scientists sent a statement to the US Environmental Protection Agency asserting that independent research is being thwarted by industry technology/stewardship agreements.

In light of our existing experience with genetic engineering, and recognizing the global consumer rejection of genetically engineered wheat, we restate our definitive opposition to GE wheat and our commitment to stopping the commercialization of GE traits in our wheat crops. We are committed to working with farmers, civil society groups and Indigenous peoples across the globe as we travel the road towards global food sovereignty.

Signed By: National Farmers Union, Canada Canadian Biotechnology Action Network Union Paysanne, Canada Union Biologique Paysanne, Canada Réseau Québécois contre les OGM, Canada Saskatchewan Organic Directorate, Canada Network of Concerned Farmers, Australia Organic Federation of Australia Biological Farmers of Australia Gene Ethics, Australia Greenpeace National Family Farm Coalition, USA Western Organization of Resource Councils, USA Center for Food Safety, USA Organic Consumers Association, USA


Wheat photograph from Eat. Drink. Better.

Can the Minister for Censorship Stephen Conroy be returned to sender?


Wikipedia excerpt: Stephen Michael Conroy (born 18 January 1963 in Ely, Cambridgeshire, England, near Norwich) is an Australian politician and the current Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy in the Rudd Labor Government. He has been an Australian Labor Party member of the Australian Senate since May 1996, representing the state of Victoria.[1]

Which ever way you look at it.................


Hon. Malcolm B. Turnbull, Member for Wentworth,
Leader of the Liberal Party of Australia

Monday, 22 June 2009

Possum creates an Ozcar timeline and the House of Representatives censures Malcolm Turnbull


Possum Comitatus writing at Pollytics has created a primary political timeline for the OzCar furore engaging the attention of political tragics nationwide and nostalgic Coalition members of the Australian Parliament.

You'd have to be a lead poisoned crackhead to believe this.

This afternoon the House of Representatives has voted to pass a censure motion against the Federal Leader of the Opposition Malcolm Turnbull citing his reliance on that now notorious alleged email which pointed a finger at the probity of the Australian Prime Minister.

The Sydney Morning Herald has live coverage of Ute-Gate here.

Brave young Maree Jay takes on the ugly face of Australian journalism at The Daily Examiner



Hot on the heels of The Daily Examiner office at Yamba being broken into and what sounds like an amount of petty cash stolen, that newspaper attempted to run a crime wave scare concerning people of aboriginal appearance and allegedly low police numbers [The Daily Examiner, 11 June 2009].

Something that Grafton Police Chief Inspector Darren Spooner flatly denied as he happens to live in Yamba [The Daily Examiner, 13 June 2009,p5].

By 12 June 2009 this inchoate media beatup had quickly morphed into a generalised attack on the indigenous community of Yamba.

Now 22 year-old Maree Jay of Grafton has taken the newspaper's boastfully unrepentant editor to task for his judgmental, one-eyed, hearsay-ridden view of the Yaegl community.

Once again, Peter Chapman has added an editor's comment which reflects his inability to recognise his own journalistic shortcomings.

Ngaru Village

THIS is a formal complaint written to the people involved in the production and publishing of the story 'Yamba's Mission' (DEX, June 13).
This article is an example of social segregation and disinclusion. These are two words identified by the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commissioner 2003 as contributors to a) the history of oppression of Australian Aboriginal and Torres Strait lslander people and b) the continuation of such abuse.
By publishing this story you are actively continuing that cycle. The 'Yamba community' is spoken to as if they are white, and the 'Aboriginal people'are not spoken to, they are spoken about.
It is 2009, I am 22 years old and the printing of this story made me feel sick in the bottom of my stomach.
I wonder how a story with the same stereotyping, ignorance, opportunism and the lack of factual research seen in stories published when my grandmother was 22 years old can be so destructively distributed throughout our community.
Did you ask anyone in the Aboriginal community anything about their life? No. You snuck in at 6.15 in the morning to rely on photos that give an out-of-context, sensationalised impression.
lf you were a Koori person, would you want to go into town with this story in the press?
Maree Jay,
GRAFTON.

EDITOR'S COMMENT;
The response from Maree Jay reflects indignation that someone would dare criticise Yamba's Ngaru Village.
Like us, you know that our story is based on fact, not on rumours.
Key details of what is happening at the village have been known to this paper for many months.
Rather than attack us, the question I put back to you is: As a concerned 22-year-old what have you done in the past few years to assist Ngaru Village and to help improve the living standards of the children who call the village home?
It would have been easy for this paper to have ignored Ngaru Village. We knew we would generate howls of protests like yours.
I don't apologise for taking the stance we have, in fact l would have been embarrassed if we
hadn't.


As the editor has not yet made one constructive suggestion or concrete offer of help, it is the height of hypocrisy on his part to suggest that another should be doing so.

Peter Chapman may not be embarrassed, but I wouldn't mind betting that there are a few reputable journalists who would be embarrassed by his amateurish existence.

FACT OR SQUEAKTGATE JOURNALISM?

** Transcript of a letter to the editor hand delivered to The Daily Examiner on 19 June 2009.

Sir,

FACT OR SQUEAKTGATE JOURNALISM?

Your arrogant response to 22 year old Maree Jay's letter "Ngaru Village" 18-6-09 claiming that your "story was based on fact" is as fictional as your sensationalistic journalism unable to distinguish between fact, opinion or hearsay in blind pursuit of profit.

An unidentified pilot who claimed to be able to see through the roofs of most of the homes is not fact but hearsay.

A photograph of a disused house cited for demolition is nothing more than a disused house cited for demolition.

Claims made by a former unidentified ambulance driver is not fact but hearsay.

Your claim of unidentified "young people running around the streets staging break and enters and smashing property --- on a daily basis" is not fact but your opinion that goes very close to defamation.
It does not appear to be corroborated by Chief Inspector Spooner nor does it link the residents of Ngaru Village with such alleged crimes.

And the report that a Queensland teenager has been charged with 11 offences including break and enter is not evidence that the elders of Ngaru Village are involved in such crimes.

"Where do these youths come from and who is guiding then through life----" is not a fact but a question that should have been answered by you as the investigative journalist.

Having read your squeakygate news report the only crime the elders of Ngaru Village seem to have committed is the crime of being poor.

Your uncorroborated sensationalism targeting the elders of Ngaru Village appears to be designed to sell newspapers and make a profit for yourself rather than help the elders of Ngaru Village.
In doing so you have made yourself vulnerable to a claim of defamation.

As the editor of the only daily news publication in the Clarence Valley, surely you have an obligation to provide a responsible news serve, accurate, impartial and with the utmost integrity.

RAY HUNT
Yamba




Guest Speak is a North Coast Voices segment allowing serious or satirical comment from NSW Northern Rivers residents. Email ncvguestpeak at live dot com dot au to submit comment for consideration.

North Coast Voices will be revealed for its ignorance according to the mainstream media!



This year The Daily Examiner of Grafton (which is the only local daily newspaper covering the Clarence Valley) marks 150 years of journalism and news reporting, so it is sad that the once proud newspaper was reduced to this last Saturday when the editor was criticized by James Patterson of Ramornie in a letter to the editor.

In part this is what Mr. Patterson said:

You deserve to come under attack for your articles on the Yamba village because, in your rush to get the story out, you delivered a piece low on research and fact and high on emotive journalism.
Your key story ran for a week to mainly justify your position.
A raised voice at 6.15am, a photo of a rundown building and a quote from a politician are not cold, hard facts that will convince people.

Peter Chapman's reply induced some mirth here at North Coast Voices when in part it stated:

EDITOR'S COMMENT: To every story there is a start and an end.
We have only just scratched the surface of the Ngaru Village story.
I refute your comments that it wasn't based on any hard facts.
It is unfortunate that many people in the community know about what is happening in the village yet very few if any, are prepared to put their name to the story.
Our information comes from impeccable sources and when the story is finished people who have criticised our stance will be revealed for their ignorance.

On Saturday The Daily Examiner also ran this story which, rumour has it, is a change of tone and emphasis brought on by the thought that ABC TV's Media Watch may be aware of Peter Chapman's recent over the top reporting on Ngaru Village.
A case of twice bitten, third time shy?