Monthly Archives: March 2016

LIGHT Act? Democrat senators’ new GMO label law

A new bill has been introduced to the US Senate to ensure that consumers can find GMO ingredient labeling on food packaging, while ensuring food producers are not subject to confusing or conflicting labeling requirements in different states.

The new legislation presents an alternative to the so-called ‘Deny Americans the Right to Know’ or DARK Act – a bill just approved by the Senate Agriculture Committee that would hide GM ingredient information from consumers by overturning state GMO labeling laws.

The Biotechnology Food Labeling Uniformity bill was introduced by four Democrat senators: Oregon’s Senator Jeff Merkley; Vermont Senators Patrick Leahy and Jon Tester; and California’s Dianne Feinstein.

“Rather than blocking consumers’ access to information they want, the US Senate should move forward with a solution that works for businesses and consumers alike”, said Merkley, the top Democrat on the Senate Agriculture Appropriations Subcommittee.

“There is a way to give consumers the information they are asking for without placing unfair or conflicting requirements on food producers. This legislation provides the common-sense pathway forward.”

Telling consumers what they want to know

The Biotechnology Food Labeling and Uniformity Act would allow American consumers to see whether a food has been prepared with GM ingredients, while offering food manufacturers several options for including this information on or near the ingredients list.

This framework meets the needs of consumers, the vast majority of whom support labeling according to polls, and producers, who worry that a patchwork of state labeling laws would be costly and difficult to comply with and confusing for consumers.    

Specifically, the Biotechnology Food Labeling Uniformity Act would amend the Food Drug and Cosmetic Act to require manufacturers to disclose the presence of GM ingredients on the Nutrition Fact Panel in one of four ways:

1. Manufacturers may use a parenthesis following the relevant ingredient to indicate that this ingredient is ‘Genetically Engineered’.

2. Manufacturers may identify GM ingredients with an asterisk and provide an explanation at the bottom of the ingredients list.

3. Manufacturers may simply apply a catch all statement at the end of the ingredient list stating the product was ‘produced with genetic engineering’.

4. The FDA would have the authority to develop a symbol, in consultation with food manufacturers, that would clearly and conspicuously disclose the presence of GM ingredients on packaging. 

None of these options would require front panel disclosures or ‘warning’ statements intending to disparage GM ingredients.

Regulatory certainty for manufacturers

In addition to providing concrete disclosure options, today’s GMO labeling bill would also provide regulatory certainty to national food manufacturers.

This legislative proposal represents a uniform Federal GM labeling standard with sufficient flexibility to suit manufacturing operations of various sizes and markets, while also giving national manufacturers in compliance with the federal standard safe harbor from the potential patchwork of state laws.  

Through this proposal, interested consumers have the ability to find clear information about GM ingredients written directly on the product label when making food purchasing decisions, and food producers have regulatory certainty in complying with a single GMO labeling standard.

“This bill is an important step forward to give consumers a uniform national mandatory label, and it seeks to address the needs of food producers by giving them a suite of options to comply with a mandatory national label”, said Leahy, a current member and former chairman of the Senate Agriculture Committee, adding:

“I believe that until a national mandatory label like this is enacted, Congress should not preempt state laws, like Vermont’s Act 120.”

Progressive manufacturers and consumer advocates support the bill

The legislation is endorsed by Amy’s Kitchen, Ben and Jerry’s, Campbell’s Soup Company, Consumers Union, Just Label It, and Nature’s Path.

“The legislation reflects Campbell’s support for mandatory national standards for labeling of foods made with GMOs”, said Kelly D. Johnston, Vice President of Government Affairs for Campbell Soup Company. “We applaud Senator Jeff Merkley and his colleagues for responding to consumers’ desire for the information they seek in a consistent and transparent manner.”

Likewise Gary Hirshberg, Chairman of Just Label It and Chairman of Stonyfield Farms: “As a businessman, I know the value of transparency and trust. Consumers are demanding the right to know more about their food and how it’s grown, and so far, the response from Congress and many companies has been to keep them in the dark.

“I believe Senator Merkley’s bill is the kind of proposal that could bridge the divide between consumers and food companies on the issue of GMO labeling. This bill will give consumers the information they want, while allowing manufacturers the flexibility they say they need to implement mandatory, on-package labeling.”

Jean Halloran, director of food policy initiatives for Consumers Union, said: “This is what real disclosure looks like. This bill finds a way to set a national standard and avoid a patchwork of state labeling laws while still giving consumers the information they want and deserve about what’s in their food.

“This compromise offers food companies different labeling options and ensures that all consumers – no matter where they are in the country or whether they own a smartphone – have the information they overwhelmingly say they want. We urge Senators to support this proposal as they move forward on GMO labeling legislation.”

Senator Tester, a farmer from Big Sandy, Montana, concluded: “American consumers have been asking for this information and this bill strikes a reasonable balance that will deliver it. Transparency in food labeling strengthens our families and communities, and ensures consumers aren’t left in the dark.” 

 


 

Principal source: Senator Jeff Merkley.

 

LIGHT Act? Democrat senators’ new GMO label law

A new bill has been introduced to the US Senate to ensure that consumers can find GMO ingredient labeling on food packaging, while ensuring food producers are not subject to confusing or conflicting labeling requirements in different states.

The new legislation presents an alternative to the so-called ‘Deny Americans the Right to Know’ or DARK Act – a bill just approved by the Senate Agriculture Committee that would hide GM ingredient information from consumers by overturning state GMO labeling laws.

The Biotechnology Food Labeling Uniformity bill was introduced by four Democrat senators: Oregon’s Senator Jeff Merkley; Vermont Senators Patrick Leahy and Jon Tester; and California’s Dianne Feinstein.

“Rather than blocking consumers’ access to information they want, the US Senate should move forward with a solution that works for businesses and consumers alike”, said Merkley, the top Democrat on the Senate Agriculture Appropriations Subcommittee.

“There is a way to give consumers the information they are asking for without placing unfair or conflicting requirements on food producers. This legislation provides the common-sense pathway forward.”

Telling consumers what they want to know

The Biotechnology Food Labeling and Uniformity Act would allow American consumers to see whether a food has been prepared with GM ingredients, while offering food manufacturers several options for including this information on or near the ingredients list.

This framework meets the needs of consumers, the vast majority of whom support labeling according to polls, and producers, who worry that a patchwork of state labeling laws would be costly and difficult to comply with and confusing for consumers.    

Specifically, the Biotechnology Food Labeling Uniformity Act would amend the Food Drug and Cosmetic Act to require manufacturers to disclose the presence of GM ingredients on the Nutrition Fact Panel in one of four ways:

1. Manufacturers may use a parenthesis following the relevant ingredient to indicate that this ingredient is ‘Genetically Engineered’.

2. Manufacturers may identify GM ingredients with an asterisk and provide an explanation at the bottom of the ingredients list.

3. Manufacturers may simply apply a catch all statement at the end of the ingredient list stating the product was ‘produced with genetic engineering’.

4. The FDA would have the authority to develop a symbol, in consultation with food manufacturers, that would clearly and conspicuously disclose the presence of GM ingredients on packaging. 

None of these options would require front panel disclosures or ‘warning’ statements intending to disparage GM ingredients.

Regulatory certainty for manufacturers

In addition to providing concrete disclosure options, today’s GMO labeling bill would also provide regulatory certainty to national food manufacturers.

This legislative proposal represents a uniform Federal GM labeling standard with sufficient flexibility to suit manufacturing operations of various sizes and markets, while also giving national manufacturers in compliance with the federal standard safe harbor from the potential patchwork of state laws.  

Through this proposal, interested consumers have the ability to find clear information about GM ingredients written directly on the product label when making food purchasing decisions, and food producers have regulatory certainty in complying with a single GMO labeling standard.

“This bill is an important step forward to give consumers a uniform national mandatory label, and it seeks to address the needs of food producers by giving them a suite of options to comply with a mandatory national label”, said Leahy, a current member and former chairman of the Senate Agriculture Committee, adding:

“I believe that until a national mandatory label like this is enacted, Congress should not preempt state laws, like Vermont’s Act 120.”

Progressive manufacturers and consumer advocates support the bill

The legislation is endorsed by Amy’s Kitchen, Ben and Jerry’s, Campbell’s Soup Company, Consumers Union, Just Label It, and Nature’s Path.

“The legislation reflects Campbell’s support for mandatory national standards for labeling of foods made with GMOs”, said Kelly D. Johnston, Vice President of Government Affairs for Campbell Soup Company. “We applaud Senator Jeff Merkley and his colleagues for responding to consumers’ desire for the information they seek in a consistent and transparent manner.”

Likewise Gary Hirshberg, Chairman of Just Label It and Chairman of Stonyfield Farms: “As a businessman, I know the value of transparency and trust. Consumers are demanding the right to know more about their food and how it’s grown, and so far, the response from Congress and many companies has been to keep them in the dark.

“I believe Senator Merkley’s bill is the kind of proposal that could bridge the divide between consumers and food companies on the issue of GMO labeling. This bill will give consumers the information they want, while allowing manufacturers the flexibility they say they need to implement mandatory, on-package labeling.”

Jean Halloran, director of food policy initiatives for Consumers Union, said: “This is what real disclosure looks like. This bill finds a way to set a national standard and avoid a patchwork of state labeling laws while still giving consumers the information they want and deserve about what’s in their food.

“This compromise offers food companies different labeling options and ensures that all consumers – no matter where they are in the country or whether they own a smartphone – have the information they overwhelmingly say they want. We urge Senators to support this proposal as they move forward on GMO labeling legislation.”

Senator Tester, a farmer from Big Sandy, Montana, concluded: “American consumers have been asking for this information and this bill strikes a reasonable balance that will deliver it. Transparency in food labeling strengthens our families and communities, and ensures consumers aren’t left in the dark.” 

 


 

Principal source: Senator Jeff Merkley.

 

LIGHT Act? Democrat senators’ new GMO label law

A new bill has been introduced to the US Senate to ensure that consumers can find GMO ingredient labeling on food packaging, while ensuring food producers are not subject to confusing or conflicting labeling requirements in different states.

The new legislation presents an alternative to the so-called ‘Deny Americans the Right to Know’ or DARK Act – a bill just approved by the Senate Agriculture Committee that would hide GM ingredient information from consumers by overturning state GMO labeling laws.

The Biotechnology Food Labeling Uniformity bill was introduced by four Democrat senators: Oregon’s Senator Jeff Merkley; Vermont Senators Patrick Leahy and Jon Tester; and California’s Dianne Feinstein.

“Rather than blocking consumers’ access to information they want, the US Senate should move forward with a solution that works for businesses and consumers alike”, said Merkley, the top Democrat on the Senate Agriculture Appropriations Subcommittee.

“There is a way to give consumers the information they are asking for without placing unfair or conflicting requirements on food producers. This legislation provides the common-sense pathway forward.”

Telling consumers what they want to know

The Biotechnology Food Labeling and Uniformity Act would allow American consumers to see whether a food has been prepared with GM ingredients, while offering food manufacturers several options for including this information on or near the ingredients list.

This framework meets the needs of consumers, the vast majority of whom support labeling according to polls, and producers, who worry that a patchwork of state labeling laws would be costly and difficult to comply with and confusing for consumers.    

Specifically, the Biotechnology Food Labeling Uniformity Act would amend the Food Drug and Cosmetic Act to require manufacturers to disclose the presence of GM ingredients on the Nutrition Fact Panel in one of four ways:

1. Manufacturers may use a parenthesis following the relevant ingredient to indicate that this ingredient is ‘Genetically Engineered’.

2. Manufacturers may identify GM ingredients with an asterisk and provide an explanation at the bottom of the ingredients list.

3. Manufacturers may simply apply a catch all statement at the end of the ingredient list stating the product was ‘produced with genetic engineering’.

4. The FDA would have the authority to develop a symbol, in consultation with food manufacturers, that would clearly and conspicuously disclose the presence of GM ingredients on packaging. 

None of these options would require front panel disclosures or ‘warning’ statements intending to disparage GM ingredients.

Regulatory certainty for manufacturers

In addition to providing concrete disclosure options, today’s GMO labeling bill would also provide regulatory certainty to national food manufacturers.

This legislative proposal represents a uniform Federal GM labeling standard with sufficient flexibility to suit manufacturing operations of various sizes and markets, while also giving national manufacturers in compliance with the federal standard safe harbor from the potential patchwork of state laws.  

Through this proposal, interested consumers have the ability to find clear information about GM ingredients written directly on the product label when making food purchasing decisions, and food producers have regulatory certainty in complying with a single GMO labeling standard.

“This bill is an important step forward to give consumers a uniform national mandatory label, and it seeks to address the needs of food producers by giving them a suite of options to comply with a mandatory national label”, said Leahy, a current member and former chairman of the Senate Agriculture Committee, adding:

“I believe that until a national mandatory label like this is enacted, Congress should not preempt state laws, like Vermont’s Act 120.”

Progressive manufacturers and consumer advocates support the bill

The legislation is endorsed by Amy’s Kitchen, Ben and Jerry’s, Campbell’s Soup Company, Consumers Union, Just Label It, and Nature’s Path.

“The legislation reflects Campbell’s support for mandatory national standards for labeling of foods made with GMOs”, said Kelly D. Johnston, Vice President of Government Affairs for Campbell Soup Company. “We applaud Senator Jeff Merkley and his colleagues for responding to consumers’ desire for the information they seek in a consistent and transparent manner.”

Likewise Gary Hirshberg, Chairman of Just Label It and Chairman of Stonyfield Farms: “As a businessman, I know the value of transparency and trust. Consumers are demanding the right to know more about their food and how it’s grown, and so far, the response from Congress and many companies has been to keep them in the dark.

“I believe Senator Merkley’s bill is the kind of proposal that could bridge the divide between consumers and food companies on the issue of GMO labeling. This bill will give consumers the information they want, while allowing manufacturers the flexibility they say they need to implement mandatory, on-package labeling.”

Jean Halloran, director of food policy initiatives for Consumers Union, said: “This is what real disclosure looks like. This bill finds a way to set a national standard and avoid a patchwork of state labeling laws while still giving consumers the information they want and deserve about what’s in their food.

“This compromise offers food companies different labeling options and ensures that all consumers – no matter where they are in the country or whether they own a smartphone – have the information they overwhelmingly say they want. We urge Senators to support this proposal as they move forward on GMO labeling legislation.”

Senator Tester, a farmer from Big Sandy, Montana, concluded: “American consumers have been asking for this information and this bill strikes a reasonable balance that will deliver it. Transparency in food labeling strengthens our families and communities, and ensures consumers aren’t left in the dark.” 

 


 

Principal source: Senator Jeff Merkley.

 

European Union – stop glyphosate reauthorisation!

Glyphosate is now the most used synthetic chemical of all time and is widely suspected of interfering with human hormonal systems.

A recent study by European and American researchers estimated the cost of the health impacts of such endocrine disruptors to be €157bn.

The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), an agency of the WHO, also concluded last year that glyphosate is “probably carcinogenic” to humans.

Yet in spite of this clear evidence of harm, Commission President Juncker and his team persist in their refusal to regulate.

Here is a clear example of the Commission ignoring loud and repeated public concern about widely used chemicals and their impact on human health. So it falls to MEPs in the European Parliament to fight this battle on behalf of Europe’s citizens.

Herbicide of contention

To understand the situation, we must go back to March 2015, when IARC was evaluating glyphosate toxicity. Their decision that the chemical probably causes cancer followed a detailed evaluation undertaken in full transparency by experts independent of the chemical industry, and was based entirely on published, peer-reviewed scientific studies.

Glyphosate faced re-evaluation at EU level because its authorisation was due to expire in June 2016. The European Food Safety Agency (EFSA) took charge of the dossier. Contrary to the opinion of IARC, EFSA’s evaluation, published on 12th November 2015, found that glyphosate is probably not carcinogenic.

How experts reached this opinion cannot be explained because the process is totally opaque. Some of the experts who had advised EFSA in the evaluation of glyphosate did not even complete their declaration of conflict of interest.

Secondly, EFSA founded its opinion on questionably ‘scientific’ studies. Some had not been published at all, or not in their entirety, or had not been subject to peer-review – as is customary in the scientific domain to ensure the quality of a study.

Similarly, glyphosate is always used with additives to produce a herbicide, as is the case for Roundup. Yet EFSA restricted itself to evaluating pure glyphosate without taking into account its effects when combined with other substances.

It seems that the in-use conditions of a herbicide are of no interest to EFSA. This is in stark contrast to the view of 96 internationally renowned scientists, who last November, wrote to the Commissioner for Health, Vytenis Andriukaitis.

Knowing that the Commission bases its decision for renewal or refusal on the Agency’s own opinion, the 96 scientists demanded in no uncertain terms that Andriukaitis reconsider the EFSA opinion, as it does not fulfil standard scientific criteria.

GMOs and glyphosate: two sides of the same coin

Sadly, this is not the only example of Team Juncker doing a favour for Monsanto and other agrochemical multinationals who rely on agritech for their profits. Last December, the majority of members of the Environment and Public Health committee of the European Parliament voted against the authorisation for the import of a GM maize for food and feed in Europe.

Four days later, the European Commission approved this authorisation, without even waiting for the outcome of the plenary vote. As it turns out, this maize is Monsanto’s NK603 x T25, which is tolerant to – you’ve guessed it – glyphosate.

And so the deal is done. First EFSA announces that glyphosate is not dangerous, and then the Commission authorises a type of maize which is genetically modified to withstand high doses of glyphosate-based herbicide. The EU looks like a paradise for multinationals. With such dubious process it is no surprise that Euroscepticism is on the rise.

As a political representative it is incumbent on me to share my concerns about the weakness of democratic processes surrounding the authorisation of pesticides and GM crops. However, I should be equally clear that this is not a basis to argue for the UK to leave the European Union: the UK government is at least as keen to support corporate agribusiness as the EU Commission.

In fact, the UK has been leading the charge for de-regulation – for which read the reduction of standards that protect public health – and for undermining the de facto moratorium on growing GM crops in the EU.

As Greens we believe that the EU is the place where we should battle corporate power most effectively – and that’s something we can only do while the UK is a member of the EU.

Our priority is a transition to sustainable and healthy agriculture that can produce the safe food we need without damaging our environment. We therefore call upon the Commission to begin a transparent evaluation procedure for glyphosate and we repeat our demand for a total ban on the authorisation of new GMOs.

 


 

Molly Scott Cato is Green MEP for the South West of England, elected in May 2014. She sits on the Economics and Monetary Affairs Committee and Agriculture and Rural Development Committee in the European Parliament. She is Green Party speaker on economy and finance and has published widely, particularly on issues related to green economics. Molly is formerly Professor of Strategy and Sustainability at the University of Roehampton.

Also on The Ecologist:

 

53,000 Nigerian oil spill victims press new Shell lawsuits

Two new cases against Shell, the oil multinational, have today been allowed to proceed by in the High Court in London.

The cases were filed by London law firm Leigh Day on behalf of two Nigerian communities in the Niger Delta who have been affected by oil pollution: the Ogale Community in Ogoniland and the Bille Kingdom.

Judge Raeside QC ruled that formal legal proceedings can now be served on Shell Nigeria (the Shell Petroleum Development Company of Nigeria Ltd) who will be joined to the English proceedings alongside Royal Dutch Shell plc.

In an important precedent in January 2015 that followed a three-year legal battle in London’s High Court, Shell agreed to pay out £55 million to some 15,600 Bodo farmers and fishers following oil spills in 2008 and 2009, which devastated the environment surrounding the community of Bodo, Rivers State, Nigeria.

Court documents from that case show that Shell admitted that it had underestimated the volume of oil spills in the region. Shell had repeatedly asserted that the volume of oil spills was 4,000 barrels of oil affecting the Bodo community, while expert evidence put the volume of oil spilt in the region of 500,000 oil barrels. 

Court documents also revealed that internal emails and reports showed that senior Shell employees had expressed concern as far back as in 2001 of the need to replace oil pipelines in the Niger Delta, describing some sections as containing “major risk and hazard”.

Many more claims where these ones came from

Shell’s failure to maintain and protect pipelines may leave it liable to further a raft of compensation claims from dozens of Niger Delta communities, Amnesty International warned today.

In its investor briefing, Shell’s growing liabilities in the Niger Delta: Lessons from the Bodo court case, Amnesty International advises Shell’s investors that failures in the way the oil giant inspects and reports on oil spills could mask the scale of potential financial liability arising for Shell.

Amnesty International’s UK Economic Affairs Programme Director Peter Frankental said: “Shell has an appalling record of obfuscation and misinformation with regard to its dealings in the Niger Delta. Our briefing reveals just how irresponsible Shell has been in its operations in the region.  

“It’s disgraceful that Shell has to be dragged to the courts to address these issues. Surely time, money and the health, livelihoods and emotional anguish of the affected communities could have been spared had Shell simply accepted responsibility and cleaned up the oil spills quickly and thoroughly.

“We hope that the Bodo case and this new lawsuit will spur Shell on to accept its responsibilities by cleaning up the oil spills and compensating those in the Niger Delta whose lives have been devastated by them.”

Ogale – seven years of massive oil contamination

Ogale, located in the Nchia region, Rivers State in Nigeria, has an estimated population of over 40,000. Residents have traditionally been either crop farmers or have relied on the Ogale Stream, its tributaries and waterways as fishing areas.

However, Ogale has been subjected to repeated oil spillages across much of the community since at least 1989. At one spill site at Okuluebu, it is estimated that there were 87,500 barrels of oil remaining at the site when the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) conducted investigations in 2010.

An especially severe spill occurred in 2009, as reported by Amnesty International in November 2015. When its researchers visited the site of the spill they saw farmland and swamp heavily polluted, with black patches covering the ground, and a strong smell of oil.

In 2011 the United Nations Environmental Programme (UNEP) published an Environmental Assessment of Ogoniland which included extensive testing of the Ogale Community. The UNEP Report found that Oil spills in Ogoniland happen “with alarming regularity” and that “it is a fair assumption that most members of the current Ogoniland community have lived with chronic oil pollution throughout their lives.”

At the time, as set out in Amnesty’s 2015 ‘Clean It Up‘ report, Shell accepted the findings and the recommendations of the UNEP Report. However, four years later, Shell has failed to comply with the recommendations of the UNEP Report and to clean up the sites polluted by their oil.

The Ogale Pipelines and Infrastructure are several decades old and in a poor state of repair making the area vulnerable to oil spills which have caused, and continue to cause, long-term contamination of the land, swamps, groundwater and waterways in the Community.

The Community are now claiming for compensation and seeking to get Shell to clean up the damage caused by their oil. HRH Emere Godwin Bebe Okpabi, the Paramount Ruler of Ogale, said:

“Shell have polluted our land and our streams and drinking wells for years. Even when the UNEP report suggested that something urgent should be done, Shell did not even come to see our community or to talk to us. No-one is listening to us, no-one cares. We hope at last this case will force Shell clean up at long last.”

Bille: a densely populated wetland despoliated

Bille, also in River State has a population of nearly 13,000 living in a number of island towns and fishing settlements that are surrounded entirely by water.

They have traditionally relied on fishing to sustain their way of life, however, following reated oil spills from the Nembe Creek 30″ Trunkline (NCTL) their livelihood has been destroyed. Most properties on Bille have been damaged by the pollution and residents have even been forced to stack sandbags outside their homes to try to prevent oil entering their properties.

The NCTL stretches for almost 100 kilometres and was built in 1981 and although money was recently spent to replace it, Shell failed to install leak detection systems to prevent and detect operational spills and/or protect against third party interference, known as ‘bunkering’, in breach of Nigerian legal standards.

According to the legal action, the creeks, mangroves and island communities in Bille have allegedly been devastated by oil emanating from the NCTL since the replacement of the Bille Section of the pipeline in 2010. It is alleged that 13,200 hectares of mangrove have been damaged by oil spilled from the Bille Pipelines and Infrastructure.

The key issue in the claim will be whether Shell can be liable for failing to protect their pipelines from damage caused by third parties – generally criminals deliberately breaching pipelines in order to steal oil.

In the judgment handed down in the Bodo litigation, it held that where it can be shown that Shell neglected to protect their pipelines properly, they could be liable for the damage arising from their neglect.

This claim seeks to confirm the findings of this judgment and if successful will mark a significant expansion in Shell’s liability for their activities in Nigeria.

Daniel Leader, partner in the International Group Claims team at Leigh Day said: “It is scandalous that four year after the UNEP Report Shell is yet to clean up its oil in either Ogale or Bille. Our client’s patience has now run out and we intend to force Shell to act since it is clear they have no intention of doing so on their own.

“Given the extent of the damage, we believe that the clean up costs for both communities will run into several hundred million pounds. The claims from the thousands of individuals affected by this pollution, could run into tens of millions of pounds given the impact on these communities.”

Shell: ‘our actions have been lauded across civil society’

A spokesperson for the Shell Petroleum Development Company of Nigeria (SPDC) said: “We are at an early stage of reviewing the claims made by the Bille and Ogale communities. Both Bille and Ogale are areas heavily impacted by crude oil theft, pipeline sabotage and illegal refining which remain the main sources of pollution across the Niger Delta.

Ogale is in Ogoniland and it is important to note that SPDC has produced no oil or gas in Ogoniland since 1993. Access to the area has been limited following a rise in violence, threats to staff and attacks on facilities.

“The Bille and Ogale communities have chosen to bring these claims in the UK instead of in Nigeria, whose laws govern our operations. It is our intention to contest the jurisdiction of the English court over these claims. We believe that allegations concerning Nigerian plaintiffs in dispute with a Nigerian company, over issues which took place within Nigeria, should be heard in Nigeria.”

“Furthermore, Ogoniland is the area covered by the United Nations Environment Programme’s Environmental Assessment (‘the UNEP report’) of 2011. UNEP presented its recommendations as an opportunity to bring a culture of multi-stakeholder cooperation to Ogoniland, a process in which SPDC has been involved. SPDC has also initiated action to address all the recommendations directed to it in the UNEP report as operator of the SPDC Joint Venture.

In mid-2015 SPDC JV, along with the government, UNEP and representatives of the Ogoni community, agreed to an 18-month roadmap to fast-track the environmental clean-up and remediation of Ogoniland which includes a governance framework.

“These steps have been widely lauded across civil society in Nigeria and have been welcomed by members of the Ogoni community itself. Asking the English court to intervene and order remediation activity covering the same ground as the UNEP implementation plan is a direct challenge to the internal political acts and decisions of the Nigerian State, and its sovereign right to determine, within its own territory, the appropriate future path for the Ogoni community.”

 


 

Oliver Tickell edits The Ecologist.

 

The Shaman’s cure: a Gaian awakening

The shaman’s incantations were rising and falling; I felt my body, as if floating at sea, rising gently over the swell. Waves of sound rippled through me, helped on by the heavy pulsing of feet and the pentatonic blowing of mouth organs.

Shafts of colour, more brilliant than I had ever before seen, vibrated through my mind’s eye, turning me into a media player with its swirling fractals, as images of pagodas, of filigree trestles and chairs dissolved and reformed, at times taking on the squirming form of brightly coloured serpents.

For a moment I was being transported to Colombia’s Sierra Nevada de Santa Marta, back in time some 20 years, on a visit to the land of the Kogis and Arhuacos, those extraordinary indigenous peoples, who in resisting the childish behaviour of their ‘young brothers’ – no less than the rest of humanity – declare themselves the Guardians of Mother Earth.

The deadly snake that saved my life

I was on my way back to the town, to Santa Marta and the ‘civilized’ world, so renounced by the Kogi, and in descending I had found a steep, eroded mule track, its walls as high as my chest.

I was cutting corners, taking the quick way down instead of the more ambling route that the rest of our small party was following, and I had forgotten what I had learned from the indigenous peoples of the Colombian Amazon: that short cuts spell danger, they are the bifurcations in our lives when discretion may well prove the better part of valour.

In my exhilaration, I was jumping down from one side to the other of the track, like a bob-sleigh gathering speed as it hurtles down from one icy corner to the next. Suddenly a flash of vivid colours and I was leaping instinctively upwards and upwards, barely realizing what had impelled me to jump. At that moment, like an arrow from a bow, a coral snake launched itself at me, but in my leap I was already above it and it passed harmlessly beneath.

“Culebra, culebra!” I shouted, warning the ten year old boy, the son of a coffee grower, whom I had met on the road, and who was a willing accomplice in our ruse to get down the mountain first and fast. He ground to a halt and dispatched the unfortunate creature with a stick that he found lying there on the ground.

I am sure of it: that snake had saved my life. Ten minutes later I was in a village, when a drunken man, his eyes bloodshot and his hands gripping a shot gun, told me with unadulterated menace that I was a CIA agent for which he would kill me. He was obviously a recent colonist who, with many others, had invaded the lands that had once belonged to the Kogi.

I imagined that he was involved in the production of marijuana, which the Colombian government, with the connivance of the USA, was eliminating through spraying. Yet, I kept my cool: that snake had given me a good dose of adrenalin and I was riding high.

I thrust the gun away from my stomach and told the man in no uncertain terms that I had nothing to do with the CIA. Meanwhile, rushing up to where I was standing, the boy pleaded with the man not to shoot.

The mystery of the Amazon rainforest

But now I was not in the Sierra Nevada, I was in the upper Putumayo, close to Colombia’s border with Ecuador, with the Kamsá people, who had invited me down from Bogotá, to talk about the trees of the Amazon, and why, without the rainforest stretching for thousands of miles to the distant tropical Atlantic, Colombia might well suffer a serious decline in rainfall, resulting in droughts and higher temperatures.

I was with more than 50 indigenous women, all working communally to plant native species in areas shorn of their trees by colonizers who saw fit to convert once luxuriant forests into poor cattle pasture. That morning, walking in the mountains with the Kamsá I had seen a lone cow emerging forlornly from the mist.

What a contrast with some of the richest, most biodiverse forests in the world, that had bridged the gap between the lowland Amazon and the high Andes of the Putumayo, with its extraordinary upland páramos, those regions unique to Colombia, Ecuador and Venezuela, where the slender, bizarre, friar-like ‘frailejones’ grow among the water-holding sphagnum mosses.

It’s a world of mists and mystery, a world from where spring some of the great rivers, like the Putumayo, the Caquetá, the Magdalena, the Orinoco, the latter winding its way across the Colombian Plains to Venezuela and into the tropical Atlantic.

I had been describing how the Amazon rainforests recycle the rains that arrive from the tropical Atlantic, between Africa and Brazil; how the massive thunderstorms draw in the Trade Winds, with their rich burden of millions upon millions of tons of water vapour; how without the trees to relay the water via their roots and leaves, Colombia and the Putumayo would lose their precious watering.

All that made absolute sense to a people who, from time immemorial, had guarded the source of the grand Putumayo River, revering the forests and the páramos of that incomparably beautiful region of Colombia.

Visions of the past, present and future

My visions were no longer of swirling, ever-transmuting patterns of colour. I was flying over the surface of the Earth. The Taita was again chanting, the cadence of his voice causing me to tremble as I swooped over forests, rivers, lakes and then, as a rude awakening, over an Earth ripped clean of its trees.

Deserts loomed as the Taita lamented at the sacrilegious disregard of mankind for his home, just one Earth. As his voice swelled I felt my throat grow dry and I was gripped in a burning thirst. “I need water,” I cried, “I need water.”

“The Taitá is saying how the Earth is suffering from all that we are doing to it; it’s getting hotter and you are in the desert.” And with that I was given a few drops of water, sufficient it seemed, to have largely quenched my thirst.

My mind, now free to roam, took me to my first ever visit to Colombia in November 1985, my arrival coinciding with two terrible events, the attack and destruction of the Palace of Justice and then, days later, the awful mud slide from Nevado del Ruiz which wiped out Armero with the loss of more than 20,000 of the city’s inhabitants.

But now I was literally flying in a small plane to the Paramillo National Park where the Colombian government had granted the Atlantic Electricity Company permission to build a dam on the Sinú River, once the home of the Zenúes peoples who, as a civilization, had long disappeared.

Margarita Marino de Botero, director of INDERENA, then Colombia’s environment agency, had sent me with a television crew to denounce the dam as a catastrophe for the environment, for the unique ecology and for the Embera Katio peoples who lived on the land which was to be flooded. A powerful documentary and words were not enough; the dam, Urra 1, went ahead, causing all the predicted damage and spoiling a beautiful part of Colombia.

Ironically, not long before my flight, archeologists, looking at aerial photographs of the region from Sinú towards the coast, had encountered evidence of an extraordinary system of canals and mud banks. What they had unearthed showed that the Zenúes peoples were masters of hydrology and that they had combined horticulture and aquaculture in a way which enhanced biodiversity and the local ecology while giving them an excellent source of nutritious food.

The archeologists reckoned that the Zenúes were able to support one hundred times more people than can be supported today from that same area, now that the land has been drained and turned over to cattle raising.

Bacteria – the small organisms which rule the planet

Suddenly, I had a revelation, a moment of exquisite truth. For years I had been pushing Lovelock’s Gaia theory, referring to learned scientific papers as to how bacteria ruled the world, regulating the gases in the atmosphere, to make it just right for lumbering mammals like ourselves, who simultaneously need a lot of oxygen to give us access to energy to think, walk talk and run, while having the chances of raging fires damped down by the weight and density of nitrogen.

And, no less, the miracle of the nitrogen fixers, tucked away in the roots of legumes, which bring the gas down to the surface and convert it into the substrates vital for making practically every important component of our cells, from proteins, amino acids and even DNA.

Bacteria have been around for an awful long time, more than 3,500 million years. They are almost as old as the Earth itself. And if it hadn’t been for the early photosynthesizers, the cyanobacteria, now embedded in the leaves of all plant life, we wouldn’t have had an oxygen-rich atmosphere, let alone the stratosphere where dangerous ultraviolet gets transformed into heat after interacting with oxygen and ozone.

Some even believe that without bacteria generating oxygen our extraordinary planet might have lost the greater part of its water because of hydrogen escaping into space for lack of something to react with. The wonders of our planet never end. Life has surely made this Earth a place very different from our flanking planets, Venus and Mars.

How apt that we have just about the right concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere to notch up the temperature over the planetary surface from a bitter minus 18C to a comfortable 15C.

On the other hand, if life hadn’t taken a hand in absorbing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, if life didn’t exist on Earth, then today the surface temperature might be an extremely uncomfortable 240C. That would certainly bake the life out of us.

The impact of human activity on the Earth

For years now, I have been plugging the idea that we won’t understand climate change and the impacts of global warming, if we don’t understand that climate is an emergent property of life’s interaction with its environment, both through life reacting to the environment and simultaneously transforming it.

Just consider that all the gases in the atmosphere, even the noble gas argon generated from the interaction of cosmic rays with nitrogen, are the products of life’s metabolism. How possibly can climate be nothing more than a response of the Earth to conditions on the Sun?

To my mind, those who rattle on about the Sun being responsible for global warming and that no way could humans have an impact on climate through what they are doing to the Earth, need their heads examining.

But even those who just put climate change down to the greenhouse emissions from our cars, factories, homes and agriculture are missing the point that the great ecosystems of the world, like the rainforests of the Amazon Basin, are absolutely crucial in giving us a climate we can live with.

We chop the rainforests down at our peril, and we are getting perilously close to the time when the forests will start falling apart, even if we don’t bulldoze down one more tree.

Water and its gift to Life

I was now flying over the Amazon, skimming close to the tops of the trees and the interlocking branches and leaves of the canopy. Water vapour was spewing out of the trees and swirling upwards towards the heavens. I was in the midst of what could only be described as a mighty river of water vapour with the forest beneath me acting like a pressure hose.

I realized how right those two Russians, Victor Gorshkov and Anastassia Makarieva, were with their insight into the relationship between the forest and the clouds formed above. Classical physics tells us that when water vapour condenses into cloud-forming droplets of water there has to be a thousand-fold shrinking in the volume of water vapour as compared to liquid water.

The sudden change in volume sucks air up from the forest which, with the Sun shining above, refuels the process with the water, in the form of its vapour, pumped out from the leaves. The vertical flow of air from the ground to where clouds form, two or more kilometres up, draws air in from the oceans and so gives impetus to the mighty air mass circulation which goes from the Equator to the high latitude reaches of the Tropics.

The wind in the sails of ships past benefitted from the Trade Winds (vientos alisios) which carried them from the western reaches of Europe to South America and the mouth of the Amazon River.

And those winds, as Anastassia and Victor have shown us, are the result of an intimate relationship between the watering of the forest and the forming of clouds from the water stored in the Amazon soils beneath the trees which, by means of evapotranspiration, pump the stored water out through billions of tiny pores in the leaf surface.

Without the forest and the clouds, the water-bearing Trade Winds would no longer be sucked across the mighty expanse of the tropical Atlantic Ocean and on, over the Amazon Basin, all the way to the Andean foothills and up to the Páramos and Bogotá.

According to the Biotic Pump Theory, an Amazon Basin devoid of forests would result in a 99% reduction in rainfall in those western reaches and lead to the formation of deserts as arid as the Negev Desert in Israel with little more than 20 millimetres of rain a year. A deforested Amazon would spell utter catastrophe for Colombia and the rest of South America, let alone the rest of the world.

Makarieva’s and Gorshkov’s Biotic Pump Theory made so much sense and yet it caused an uproar amongst climatologists; for they had neglected to include the possibility in their climate models that forests played such a massive role in the regulated movement of winds, such as the Trade Winds.

Those skeptics denied that the forests and cloud forming could generate sufficient power to draw in the winds from across the ocean. “Where’s the proof?” they demanded.

Gaia – the world is a living entity

It was then that I saw how to get the proof. I had to build a structure in which I could cool one small portion of the air and at the same time measure if that cooling and the condensation of the water vapour would result in a measurable flow of air.

I did build the structure in which air was enclosed in a 5 metre-tall structure comprised of two columns connected at the top and bottom to each other. And, after more than one hundred experiments the correspondence between the condensation and the flowing of air was irrefutable and it proved that the physics underpinning the Biotic Pump Theory was absolutely correct. That proof tells us that forests are vitally important as climate regulators.

Now that I was coasting from horizon to horizon, I saw clearly that our Earth, our one Earth, was truly and absolutely alive and not just a scientific idea of counterbalancing systems, with their positive and negative feedbacks. It was as if the landscape was rushing towards me, in all its variety of forms and colours, showing me what it was made of and what we had done to it.

I felt the love of the Earth for all its creatures and that we humans, we modern humans with our need for technologies and gadgets, had wrenched us away from nature and into an unreal world that was increasingly looking as if it had no future.

That revelation, despite the intense sadness which it provoked, was at the same time, a glorious feeling of knowing, of knowing that the Earth was far more than inanimate rocks and H2O, with soil and plants and animals. It was a vibrating, pulsing super-organism that hung together in transient, ever-changing harmony, always striving to ‘be’ against the physical forces of space, stars and the universe.

The destruction of rainforests and the life within it

I remembered why I had spent years fighting for the Amazon’s rainforests and for the indigenous peoples who had lived sustainably in the world’s richest ecosystems without destroying them. In Brazil alone, sweeping indigenous peoples aside, we had cleared an area bigger than France in a few decades.

Worldwide we were clearing the equivalent of several football pitches worth of tropical rainforests every minute. And now we were engaged in annihilating rainforests to plant energy crops, such as African Palm, that would take centuries, if ever, to replace the carbon lost to the atmosphere by such a destructive and inane practice.

Forty five years ago, in 1969, the investigative journalist Norman Lewis wrote an article for the Sunday Times that sent shock waves around the world. FUNAI, the Brazilian agency for protecting indigenous peoples in Brazil and especially in the Amazon, had been engaged in a ruthless campaign of ethnocide.

Part of which was by scattering measles-infected blankets among ‘Indians’ who had no resistance and who therefore died like flies. That article was responsible for spawning organizations such as Survival International and it certainly had something to do with the publishing of The Ecologist a couple of years later.

For me that article was apocalyptic. I saw clearly that when we had wiped out the last vestiges of indigenous culture and knowledge in the Amazon we would be tolling the death knell of our own western civilization. That vision, even after so much time, was now bursting yet again into my consciousness and I was made aware of its pressing message.

The tipping point will come soon

We must stop destroying the great tropical rainforests of the world, if we ourselves are to survive. We must come to understand the extraordinary role that the rainforests, in particular those of the Amazon Basin, play in determining global climate through their energy distributing power, quite aside from harbouring thousands upon thousands of species.

We just about have time to stop what we call ‘development’ in the Amazon Basin, but which is proving to be the greatest anti-evolutionary force since the Permian, some 251 million years ago, when runaway warming caused as many as three quarters of all living species to vanish.

Then, that was a natural, inevitable event, whereas now the decision to avoid such a disaster lies in our hands. We have to act promptly, before we have disrupted for good the recycling of rain that keeps the forest healthy and which feeds the mighty river systems of Colombia. How close are we to the tipping point when the system of forest, rain and river breaks down?

The Taita was now curing me, sucking out the fragmented demons and casting them to the black of the night. I saw a tiger, teeth bared coming at me, while I was floating a few feet above the Earth. I felt the brush of palms and inhaled the swirling incense.

I heard the chanting and the rhythm of feet. Suddenly the tiger evaporated in front of my eyes, suddenly the landscape was tranquil, inviting, and I felt a sweeping relief that ran through my body and my mind. I opened my eyes and saw the light of day. My new journey into reality had begun.

 


 

Peter Bunyard is a founding editor of The Ecologist and has since continued to write for it and more recently for Resurgence & Ecologist. He has written books on Nuclear Power and on Climate Change. One such, ‘Climate Chaos’ was published in Spanish in Colombia in 2011. Recently, the University of Sergio Arboleda in Bogotá, Colombia, where he is currently carrying out research for the Institute of Environmental Studies and Services, has published in English his treatise on the Biotic Pump. He lives in Cornwall with his wife, Jimena, daughter and step-daughter.

Also by Peter Bunyard:Without its rainforest, the Amazon will turn to desert‘.

 

Monarch butterfly decline can only be stopped by a ban on glyphosate

The Monarch butterfly is famed for its spectacular 3,000 mile winter migration from N. America to Mexico before returning to breed in the spring.

The journeys of these striking orange, black and white insects span the North American continent, completed by four generations, each interlinking like a relay team to reach their final destination back in North America.

Their migration has been described as one of the world’s most spectacular natural phenomena but over the last few years, fewer and fewer have been observed completing the journey, sparking concern over the future of the species.

It has been suggested that loss of habitat of both its overwintering grounds and breeding grounds as well as severe weather conditions are all contributing to the astonishing decline that has prompted calls for the species to be placed on the endangered species list, forcing governments to take action to reverse the trend.

Many of these measures however, have been criticised for not tackling the most evident cause of their decline – the destruction of their breeding grounds by widespread glyphosate-use in America’s GM crop farms. Habitat destruction of the wintering grounds in Mexico through illegal logging have also been proposed to have contributed.

As explained below, if we are to protect this majestic species, we must address the industrialised GM-crop system that is not only a threat to butterflies, but other pollinators, let alone the health of people.

Data on monarch population decline

Long-term studies recently reveal a worrying decline in numbers reaching Mexico since records began in the 1990s. Prior to that, they were described in various publications to be abundant since the 1800s.

A research team led by Isabel Ramirez at Universidad Nacional Autonoma in Mexico analysed the total area occupied by the butterflies in hibernation over 17 years (1994-2011) (published online by World Wildlife Fund-Mexico since 1994) using two different statistical methods, and both showed significant decreases. Although the numbers vary from year to year, the highest area reported was in 1997, where they occupied 20.97 ha (hectares). In 2010, the lowest area was recorded, at just 1.92 ha.

The 2010-11 season showed a slight increase to 4.02 ha. Since the publication of this study, the numbers dropped lower, with 2013-2014 seeing the worst numbers recorded in Mexico at just 0.67 ha (again performed by the WWF of Mexico and the National Commission of Natural Protected Areas (CONANP) from the Secretariat of Environment and Natural Resources (SEMARNAT)).

The results of the study are presented in Figure 1 (above, right) and have been extended to include more recent surveys as published by the Centre for Food Safety. The year 2015 saw an increase in numbers by 69%, though we are yet so see if that is a natural fluctuation in the downwards trend or the beginning of a recovery. Yearly fluctuations are common which is why trends over decades offer more insight into the status of the species.

When analysing numbers in North America, studies have provided some conflicting data on numbers in their breeding grounds and the numbers migrating, though there is little discussion over the fact that numbers reaching Mexico are dwindling.

Analyses of egg density found a reduction from 2006 onwards. Some studies have reported no major downwards trend. This has been suggested to have arisen due to the difficulty in counting the summer and autumn numbers as they breed and migrate across the continent.

Using volunteers to collect data as was done in these studies could also have resulted in under-sampling of agricultural areas where herbicides are highly used, with volunteers instead favouring areas where butterflies are common such as parks and wildlife centres. Migration numbers from Ontario, Canada and the Northern part of the US, Michigan also do not show steep declines, suggesting that regions further south are responsible.

The migration process may also be affected by weather conditions and the loss of nectar food sources such as wildflowers that the adults feed on though evidence for this is currently lacking. Their complex migratory patterns make them especially vulnerable to an unknown number of threats at different staging posts of their migratory routes often separated by large geographical distances.

Loss of milkweed habitat in North America due to glyphosate and GM crops

Milkweed habitats have been declining since the introduction of GM crops engineered to tolerate glyphosate herbicides in 1996. Though glyphosate was used prior to their introduction, it was limited to pre-emergent application (before crops have started to emerge from the ground) and most milkweed escaped glyphosate exposure. Indeed, there are very few herbicides effective against milkweed, with glyphosate the most effective of all.

Furthermore, milkweed is generally considered a low-impact weed with regards to crop loss, making their destruction and that of the monarch totally needless. Since 1996, thorough weed surveys published in the scientific literature have documented dramatic drops in numbers, particularly in the Corn Belt, including an estimated 50% reduction in milkweed density in Iowa from 1999 to 2009.

In other US states including Minnesota, a several survey estimated a 100-fold higher level milkweed plants per ha in 2001 compared to 2003-2005. Out of 453 fields surveyed, milkweed was detected on only 3.4% of the fields. It is expected that similar patterns of milkweed loss have occurred in other non-surveyed areas in the Midwest where GM soy and corn production is widespread and steadily growing since.

Figure 2 (above, right) shows the increasing glyphosate use as well as the regions, with the Midwest showing some of the highest levels of glyphosate spraying, coinciding with the plantation of GM crops. An in-depth report form the Centre for Food Safety also lists personal observations from farmers that claim farmers have not seen milkweed in their fields for years in regions such as Nebraska and Kansas.

It must also be noted that analysis of overwintering butterflies during the 1996-1997 season showed that 50 % of butterflies originate in the Corn Belt, as determined by hydrogen and carbon isotope profiles in the wings which correlates with the latitudes of host plants, allowing researchers to map natal origins.

Repeating this work on the 2010/2011 season found that a smaller number of butterflies came from this region, suggesting changes in the heart of the Corn Belt are responsible for lower numbers reaching Mexico.

GM cultivation-induced loss of milkweed habitat overriding factor in decline

It is clear that monarch numbers are affected by the relative abundance of their only larval food source, but to what extent this is the overriding factor is still argued by those aiming to protect the commercial business of GM crop and pesticide sales.

Evidence linking monarch numbers to milkweed decline include an important study that aimed to assess which life-stage, season and geographical region across the annual cycle were contributing most to the declines of overwintering. Using population modelling techniques they compared the three main factors, habitat loss in N. America, habitat loss in Mexico and extreme weather events to see which of these issues were more influential.

They found that monarch abundance was more than four times more sensitive to perturbations of vital rates (how fast vital statistics change in a population) on the breeding grounds than on wintering grounds. Simulations that considered only forest loss or climate change predicted higher population sizes compared to milkweed declines, with females unable to lay a full complement of eggs as well as through intraspecific larval competition.

The researchers concluded that in order to conserve the species, milkweed habitat conservation is a key though smaller scale efforts such as the planting of milkweed in gardens and roadsides are likely insufficient to negate the loss due to the industrial agricultural practices over the past 2 decades.

Another study on egg numbers in North America found a direct correlation between the number of eggs laid and the area of glyphosate-tolerant crops planted. The researchers found that they were able to predict the size of the overwintering population in Mexico by egg density and habitat loss of milkweed caused by adoption of glyphosate-tolerant crops. Further, they found declines in egg densities after 2006.

This finding suggests that females are not compensating for the loss of host plants in the matrix. The fact that the egg densities are declining after 2006 suggests that the population has reached a point that some of these remaining sites are being found by fewer or no females as the overall population declines.

Current measures to tackle monarch decline

Attempts are being made to combat the drastic monarch decline. The Mexican government for example, has manged to stem illegal logging of the forests in which the monarchs spend their winters. An estimated 731 ha of land was damaged due to illegal logging from 2005-2007 alone. Efforts have been made to support local people and businesses with employment opportunities to reduce logging for firewood.

It has been reported that since November 2015, the Mexican Environmental Protection Office implemented measures that have seen no illegal logging over the last couple of months. Measures have included systematic security tours within the Monarch Butterfly Biosphere Reserve and the creation of buffer zones to surround conservation areas.

However, as reported above, complete protection of overwintering habitats the monarch decline would not be effective if efforts are not made to protect and expand their breeding grounds.

In the US, pressure to protect the famous butterfly have spurred new programmes to increase milkweed abundance including a multimillion dollar project by the United States Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), providing financial and technical assistance to help producers plant milkweed and nectar-rich plants along field borders and assist management practices on pastures.

However, it is uncertain how this will mitigate the losses caused by glyphosate-spraying which must be addressed for the Monarch to flourish once again.

The case for banning glyphosate is overwhelming, and is supported by many independent scientists as evidenced by ISIS’s independent Scientists Manifesto that has attracted hundreds of signatures from scientists as well as non-scientists.

As summarised in our recent ISIS special report Banishing Glyphosate, glyphosate exerts multiple modes of toxicity and is a serious threat to the health of people and planet.

 


 

Dr Eva Sirinathsinghji is a scientist working on GMOs with the Institute of Science in Society (ISIS).

This article was originally published by the Institute of Science in Society.

Petition: Independent Scientists Manifesto on Glyphosate‘ by Institute of Science in Society.

Also on The Ecologist:

 

Tall stories: BBC’s anti-science support for badger culling

The latest issue of the Radio Times must be making anti-culling badger people spitting mad.

An article by Terry Payne titled ‘An Unlikely Star’ is advertising a programme, in the ‘Land of Hope and Glory‘ series to be broadcast by BBC2 this Friday 4th March at 9 pm.

By her own admission, Jane Treay’s film has set out to make a very partisan case for culling badgers. As quoted by Payne, she says: “There is a massacre of our dairy herds going on and it is not being covered”.

The ‘massacre’ is the number of cattle being slaughtered because of bovine TB – around 30,000 a year (not all of which have bTB). What is never mentioned is the greater ‘massacre’ of cattle slaughtered for other reasons. For example, in 2008 75,000 were slaughtered because they were infertile.

Nor can Treays claim that the issue of bTB in cattle is not being covered. It constantly appears in the Western Region media, and other media outlets, in farming programmes on radio and TV and papers devoted to farming.

As Mark Jones, veterinarian and policy manager of the Born Free Foundation comments: “The article paints a wholly inaccurate and biased picture of the situation facing cattle farmers affected by bovine tuberculosis.”

And far more space is granted to the NFU and farmers wanting to cull badgers than is given to those people trying to argue on scientific grounds that badger culls won’t help the farmers or their cattle.

The real ‘reservoir’ of bTB is the cattle themselves

The ‘unlikely star’ of Treays’ film is Somerset farmer Maurice Durbin who has had TB on his farm since 2010. Faced with that information, Jan Bayley of the Animal Welfare Group commented: “To have continuous incidents suggests that TB is endemic in his herd.”

One wonders whether the vets and Defra inspectors constantly visiting his farm had ever suggested as much. Mark Jones agrees: “Bovine TB is a significant problem for our cattle industry. This problem has been exacerbated in recent years because of cattle farming and trading practices which are not focussed on disease control, and by successive governments which took their eye off the ball, particularly during the BSE and FMD crises. So much so, that in some parts of the west and south west the disease has effectively become endemic.”

In fact, the strong possibility of endemic bTB in herds is something that should be taken very seriously, studied and acted upon. Durbin has lost a third of his 320-strong pedigree Guernsey herd to the disease which, so the article says, is “often transmitted in the urine of badgers.” And note, not badgers possibly infected with bTB, just badgers. There are theories as to how transmission between cattle and badgers takes place, but nothing is proven.

Mark Jones adds: “Many wild animals can contract bovine TB, and badgers can certainly carry the infection. But shooting large numbers of mostly healthy badgers will not help cattle farmers tackle a problem their industry has created.

“The fundamental difficulty with bovine TB is that the primary test used to determine whether cattle are infected only detects between 50-80% of the infected animals, leaving anything from one-in-five to one-in-two (that is anything between 20% and 50%) of infected animals in the herd to continue spreading the infection. With ever larger herds this creates a huge problem, and is the reason so many herds suffer multiple breakdowns.”

The real answers are frequent testing and strict biosecurity

Durbin’s farm has been “effectively closed for all this time”. Of course it has. Mark Jones continues: “The testing limitations mean that, in order to control the spread of disease, very strict testing regimes must be introduced and adhered to, movement restrictions on known infected herds and farm biosecurity measures must be rigorous, and enforced risk-based trading is essential to ensure clean herds do not become infected from herds, which though declared ‘disease free’ actually still harbour infection.

“These are the measures which enabled bovine TB to be successfully brought under control back in the late 1950s and 1960s during the so-called ‘area eradication strategy’. Under that scheme, the number of cattle slaughtered because of bovine TB was reduced from a peak of 25,000 in 1959, to less than 10% of that figure a decade later. It’s worth noting we didn’t even know badgers could be infected with bovine TB until 1971.”

Treays says: “We hear lots about the inhumanity of culling badgers, but nothing about the 30,000 cattle that are being shot each year because of TB.”

Being shot? Does Treays know anything about the slaughter of cattle in abattoirs? She claims that she “loves” badgers and that it was right that they had become a protected species but “now it is out of balance. The job of protecting them is done.”

Seeing that badgers are still dug out of their setts for badger baiting, most would disagree with that. She continues: “No one is speaking up for the dairy industry…We have got to have a more reasoned debate.”

‘It’s the bloody do-gooders’ – is it?

The NFU is constantly bleating about the state of the dairy industry, the price of milk, the threat of bTB and the necessity of culling badgers. But it refuses absolutely to have a reasoned debate with the scientists.

Yet as Mark Jones says: “Playing the ‘badger blame game’ will not solve the bovine TB problem for farmers. The ‘massacre’ of cattle must of course be tackled, but not by massacring badgers, which won’t help struggling farmers and may well make things considerably worse.”

Payne’s article ends: A tearful farmer Durbin is clear where the blame lies. “It’s the bloody do-gooders. They interfere with everything we do.”

By ‘do-gooders’ does he means scientists, vets and wildlife experts?

 


 

Lesley Docksey is a freelance writer who writes for The Ecologist and other media on the badger cull and other environmental topics.

Also on The Ecologist:

 

Tall stories: BBC’s anti-science support for badger culling

The latest issue of the Radio Times must be making anti-culling badger people spitting mad.

An article by Terry Payne titled ‘An Unlikely Star’ is advertising a programme, in the ‘Land of Hope and Glory‘ series to be broadcast by BBC2 this Friday 4th March at 9 pm.

By her own admission, Jane Treay’s film has set out to make a very partisan case for culling badgers. As quoted by Payne, she says: “There is a massacre of our dairy herds going on and it is not being covered”.

The ‘massacre’ is the number of cattle being slaughtered because of bovine TB – around 30,000 a year (not all of which have bTB). What is never mentioned is the greater ‘massacre’ of cattle slaughtered for other reasons. For example, in 2008 75,000 were slaughtered because they were infertile.

Nor can Treays claim that the issue of bTB in cattle is not being covered. It constantly appears in the Western Region media, and other media outlets, in farming programmes on radio and TV and papers devoted to farming.

As Mark Jones, veterinarian and policy manager of the Born Free Foundation comments: “The article paints a wholly inaccurate and biased picture of the situation facing cattle farmers affected by bovine tuberculosis.”

And far more space is granted to the NFU and farmers wanting to cull badgers than is given to those people trying to argue on scientific grounds that badger culls won’t help the farmers or their cattle.

The real ‘reservoir’ of bTB is the cattle themselves

The ‘unlikely star’ of Treays’ film is Somerset farmer Maurice Durbin who has had TB on his farm since 2010. Faced with that information, Jan Bayley of the Animal Welfare Group commented: “To have continuous incidents suggests that TB is endemic in his herd.”

One wonders whether the vets and Defra inspectors constantly visiting his farm had ever suggested as much. Mark Jones agrees: “Bovine TB is a significant problem for our cattle industry. This problem has been exacerbated in recent years because of cattle farming and trading practices which are not focussed on disease control, and by successive governments which took their eye off the ball, particularly during the BSE and FMD crises. So much so, that in some parts of the west and south west the disease has effectively become endemic.”

In fact, the strong possibility of endemic bTB in herds is something that should be taken very seriously, studied and acted upon. Durbin has lost a third of his 320-strong pedigree Guernsey herd to the disease which, so the article says, is “often transmitted in the urine of badgers.” And note, not badgers possibly infected with bTB, just badgers. There are theories as to how transmission between cattle and badgers takes place, but nothing is proven.

Mark Jones adds: “Many wild animals can contract bovine TB, and badgers can certainly carry the infection. But shooting large numbers of mostly healthy badgers will not help cattle farmers tackle a problem their industry has created.

“The fundamental difficulty with bovine TB is that the primary test used to determine whether cattle are infected only detects between 50-80% of the infected animals, leaving anything from one-in-five to one-in-two (that is anything between 20% and 50%) of infected animals in the herd to continue spreading the infection. With ever larger herds this creates a huge problem, and is the reason so many herds suffer multiple breakdowns.”

The real answers are frequent testing and strict biosecurity

Durbin’s farm has been “effectively closed for all this time”. Of course it has. Mark Jones continues: “The testing limitations mean that, in order to control the spread of disease, very strict testing regimes must be introduced and adhered to, movement restrictions on known infected herds and farm biosecurity measures must be rigorous, and enforced risk-based trading is essential to ensure clean herds do not become infected from herds, which though declared ‘disease free’ actually still harbour infection.

“These are the measures which enabled bovine TB to be successfully brought under control back in the late 1950s and 1960s during the so-called ‘area eradication strategy’. Under that scheme, the number of cattle slaughtered because of bovine TB was reduced from a peak of 25,000 in 1959, to less than 10% of that figure a decade later. It’s worth noting we didn’t even know badgers could be infected with bovine TB until 1971.”

Treays says: “We hear lots about the inhumanity of culling badgers, but nothing about the 30,000 cattle that are being shot each year because of TB.”

Being shot? Does Treays know anything about the slaughter of cattle in abattoirs? She claims that she “loves” badgers and that it was right that they had become a protected species but “now it is out of balance. The job of protecting them is done.”

Seeing that badgers are still dug out of their setts for badger baiting, most would disagree with that. She continues: “No one is speaking up for the dairy industry…We have got to have a more reasoned debate.”

‘It’s the bloody do-gooders’ – is it?

The NFU is constantly bleating about the state of the dairy industry, the price of milk, the threat of bTB and the necessity of culling badgers. But it refuses absolutely to have a reasoned debate with the scientists.

Yet as Mark Jones says: “Playing the ‘badger blame game’ will not solve the bovine TB problem for farmers. The ‘massacre’ of cattle must of course be tackled, but not by massacring badgers, which won’t help struggling farmers and may well make things considerably worse.”

Payne’s article ends: A tearful farmer Durbin is clear where the blame lies. “It’s the bloody do-gooders. They interfere with everything we do.”

By ‘do-gooders’ does he means scientists, vets and wildlife experts?

 


 

Lesley Docksey is a freelance writer who writes for The Ecologist and other media on the badger cull and other environmental topics.

Also on The Ecologist: