List of Politicians paid by Monsanto

Reprint of the List of Politicians paid by Monsanto

"Democrat or Republican, it doesn’t matter. As long as you can help Monsanto slide its icy tentacles into the food chain, there’s some financial tip available to you. Thankfully, many such ties can be exposed through some data digging, and thanks to diligent readers who send comprehensive news tips and other researchers out there, we now have an extensive list of politicians getting paid cold hard cash from GMO juggernaut Monsanto.

Keep in mind these are the figures we know, which means that behind the scenes we can expect these numbers to multiply extensively. But what is most amazing is that these politicians just don’t care that you know they’re receiving thousands of dollars from Monsanto! They sweep it under the carpet, but they are openly taking money from this corporation that has been caught running ‘slave-like’ rings and disregarding public health. We’re talking about a corporation that primarily aided in the creation of Agent Orange — the Vietnam-era chemical weapon that killed over 400,000 people and led to 500,000 plus birth defects.

Looking at these figures, over $260,000 was openly pumped into the House, and $122,000 was pumped into the Senate. And again, this is openly. I’m speculating, but I would imagine the real number to easily be in the millions. Can you imagine how much they must pay these politicians to shoot down GMO labeling bills that 90 plus percent of the entire country wants?
 
Monsanto paid Senator Roy Blunt to ‘help write’ the Monsanto Protection Act that grants Monsanto immunity from federal courts? Roy’s cash payment is not included in this list, however RT reports he received $64,250 towards his campaign from the company. Surely they didn't expect anything in return?

Politicians Paid By Monsanto

House of Representatives:
Total paid by Monsanto to Democrats: $72,000
Total paid by Monsanto to Republicans: $190,500

Barrow, John (D-GA) $2,500
Bishop, Sanford (D-GA) $5,000
Boehner, John (R-OH) $10,000
Braley, Bruce (D-IA) $5,000
Camp, Dave (R-MI) $5,000
Cantor, Eric (R-VA) $10,000
Clay, William L Jr (D-MO) $10,000
Cleaver, Emanuel (D-MO) $5,000
Conaway, Mike (R-TX) $2,000
Courtney, Joe (D-CT) $4,500
Crawford, Rick (R-AR) $2,500
Fincher, Steve (R-TN) $8,000
Gardner, Cory (R-CO) $7,500

Goodlatte, Bob (R-VA) $4,500
Graves, Sam (R-MO) $5,000
Griffin, Tim (R-AR) $1,000
Guthrie, Brett (R-KY) $1,000
Hanabusa, Colleen (D-HI)$5,000
Hannemann, Mufi (D-HI) $1,000
Hartzler, Vicky (R-MO) $3,000
Holden, Tim (D-PA) $1,000
Huelskamp, Tim (R-KS) $2,500
Hultgren, Randy (R-IL) $2,500
Jenkins, Lynn (R-KS) $2,500
Johnson, Timothy (R-IL) $3,000
King, Steven A (R-IA) $2,500
Kingston, Jack (R-GA) $7,000
Kinzinger, Adam (R-IL) $3,500
Kissell, Larry (D-NC) $5,000
Labrador, Raul (R-ID) $2,000
LaMalfa, Doug (R-CA) $1,000
Landry, Jeff (R-LA) $1,000
Latham, Tom (R-IA) $10,000
Loebsack, David (D-IA) $5,000
Long, Billy (R-MO) $2,500
Lucas, Frank D (R-OK) $10,000
Luetkemeyer, Blaine (R-MO) $5,000
Lungren, Dan (R-CA) $1,000
McIntyre, Mike (D-NC) $1,000
Neugebauer, Randy (R-TX) $1,000
Noem, Kristi (R-SD) $1,000
Nunes, Devin (R-CA) $3,500
Owens, Bill (D-NY) $2,000
Peterson, Collin (D-MN) $10,000
Rogers, Hal (R-KY) $7,500
Rokita, Todd (R-IN) $5,000
Roskam, Peter (R-IL) $1,000
Schilling, Bobby (R-IL) $3,000
Schock, Aaron (R-IL) $5,000
Shimkus, John M (R-IL) $5,000
Simpson, Mike (R-ID) $10,000
Smith, Adrian (R-NE) $5,000
Stutzman, Marlin (R-IN) $5,000
Thompson, Bennie G (D-MS) $10,000
Thompson, Glenn (R-PA) $1,000
Upton, Fred (R-MI) $5,000
Valadao, David (R-CA) $2,500
Wagner, Ann L (R-MO) $10,000

Walden, Greg (R-OR) $1,000
Walorski, Jackie (R-IN) $2,500
Womack, Steve (R-AR) $1,000

Senate
Total paid by Monsanto to Democrats: $37,500
Total  paid by Monsanto to Republicans: $85,000
Akin, Todd (R-MO) $3,500
Baucus, Max (D-MT) $1,000
Berg, Rick (R-ND) $10,000
Blunt, Roy (R-MO) $10,000
Boozman, John (R-AR) $5,000
Casey, Bob (D-PA) $2,500
Chambliss, Saxby (R-GA) $5,000
Fischer, Deb (R-NE) $5,000
Gillibrand, Kirsten (D-NY) $1,000
Grassley, Chuck (R-IA) $2,000
Hirono, Mazie K (D-HI) $1,000
Johanns, Mike (R-NE) $1,000
Klobuchar, Amy (D-MN) $5,000
Landrieu, Mary L (D-LA) $1,000
McCaskill, Claire (D-MO) $5,000
McConnell, Mitch (R-KY) $10,000
Moran, Jerry (R-KS) $2,500
Nelson, Ben (D-NE) $13,000
Rehberg, Denny (R-MT) $2,000
Risch, James E (R-ID) $3,500
Roberts, Pat (R-KS) $9,000
Stabenow, Debbie (D-MI) $8,000
Thompson, Tommy G (R-WI) $5,000
Wicker, Roger (R-MS) $1,000
Wilson, Heather A (R-NM) $2,500"

Undeclared Aspartame in milk, yogurt?

The International Dairy Foods Association (IDFA) and the National Milk Producers Federation (NMPF) filed a petition with the FDA on 20 February 2013 to alter the definition of "milk" to secretly include chemical sweeteners like aspartame and chlorine-containing sucralose without them being listed on the label.

The full text of the Petition to Amend the Standard of Identity for Milk and 17 Additional Dairy Products may be found in the Federal Register here. Scroll down to "Food and Drug Administration, Proposed Rules" for the PDF.

The petition requests that FDA similarly amend the standards of identity for 17 other milk and cream products. Those standards (referred to as the “additional dairy standards”) are as follows:

Acidified milk (§ 131.111)
cultured milk (§ 131.112)
sweetened condensed milk (§ 131.120)
nonfat dry milk (§ 131.125)
nonfat dry milk fortified with vitamins A and D (§ 131.127)
evaporated milk (§ 131.130)
dry cream (§ 131.149)
heavy cream (§ 131.150)
light cream (§ 131.155)
light whipping cream (§ 131.157)
sour cream (§ 131.160)
acidified sour cream (§ 131.162)
eggnog (§ 131.170)
half-and-half (§ 131.180)
yogurt (§ 131.200)
lowfat yogurt (§ 131.203)
nonfat yogurt (§ 131.206)

According to Natural News: DFA and NMPF argue that nutrient content claims such as "reduced calorie" are not attractive to children, and maintain that consumers can more easily identify the overall nutritional value of milk products that are flavored with non-nutritive sweeteners if the labels do not include such claims. Further, the petitioners assert that consumers do not recognize milk -- including flavored milk -- as necessarily containing sugar. Accordingly, the petitioners state that milk flavored with non-nutritive sweeteners should be labeled as milk without further claims so that consumers can "more easily identify its overall nutritional value."

This is all being done to "save the children," we're told, because the use of aspartame in milk products would reduce calories.

In other words, hiding aspartame from consumers by not including it on the label actually helps consumers, according to the IDFA and NMPF!

Yep, consumers are best served by keeping them ignorant. If this logic smacks of the same kind of twisted deception practiced by Monsanto, that's because it's identical: the less consumers know, the more they are helped, according to industry. And it's for the children, too, because children are also best served by keeping them poisoned with aspartame.

Consumers have always been kept in the dark about pink slime, meat glue, rBGH and GMOs in their food. And now, if the IDFA gets its way, you'll be able to drink hormone-contaminated milk from an antibiotics-inundated cow fed genetically modified crops and producing milk containing hidden aspartame. And you won't have the right to know about any of this!

The FDA confirms this "secret" status of aspartame, stating, "If the standard of identity for milk is amended as requested by petitioners, milk manufacturers could use non-nutritive sweeteners in flavored milk without a nutrient content claim in its labeling."

The FDA is requesting public comments until May 25, 2013 on this dangerous proposed rule. Click here for instructions.

Soil Tests and Land-Grant Universities

The Morrill Acts of 1862 and 1890 established Land-Grant Universities to focus on the teaching of practical agriculture and science in contrast to the historic practice of higher education focusing on an abstract liberal arts curriculum.

Today, there are 76 Land-Grant Universities in the US, with primary support and research funding from BigAg (like Monsanto, Dow, BASF, Bayer and Syngenta). All our Extension Agents are educated at Land-Grant Universities, and are biased in favor of BigAg, because that's what they have been taught.

Thus, it is with some trepidation that I'm sending soil samples to Virginia Tech. I did that 6 years ago, and although I no longer have the results copy, I recall it was heavy on synthetic NPK application. No mention of organic matter, or growing organically. 

To be fair, 99% of what the Extension Service offers is wonderful (and free) information, everything from raising rabbits to home canning safety.

Virginia Cooperative Extension is an educational outreach program of Virginia's land grant universities: Virginia Tech and Virginia State University are a part of the national Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service, an agency of the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA).

Routine soil testing is free through Virginia Extension Service, plus an additional (optional) $6 per sample to test for soluble salts and organic matter. I don't remember if those additional tests were available 6 years ago, or I just didn't have the money. With 19 acres, I need soil tests in several areas.

One of these days I hope to get a full-blown professional soil test done by AgLabs. Their focus is on biological agriculture, not industrial agriculture.

Here's a List of Land-Grant Universities in the US.
 

 

Apocalypse? Change in Consciousness?

I confess to not liking TV in general, although I have enjoyed most of the shows on "Ancient Aliens" because they seem plausible to me.  For months now the same channel has carried segments about The End Times (Apocalypse) delivered by various prophecies from the Mayan Calendar and the Hopi Indians to Nostradamus. The chapters of Revelations from the King James Version of the Christian New Testament fits right in, with descriptions of gruesome stages to destruction.

I'm sure there are people who hold the subconscious fear that the prophecies may be right. There have been days when even I have thought it would be fitting and justified, in order to wipe out the greed/evil being carried out this lovely blue planet. But, would it, really? I worry that any survivors would still carry the concept of greed in their hearts.

Wikipedia has this to say: An apocalypse, translated literally from Greek, refers to a revelation of something hidden, although this sense did not enter the English language until the 14th century. In religious contexts it is usually a revelation of hidden meaning - hidden from human knowledge in an era dominated by falsehood and misconception. 

In the Revelation of John, the last book of the New Testament, the revelation which John receives is that of the ultimate victory of good over evil and the end of the present age. In chapter 20, John receives a vision of a thousand-year reign of the Christ/Messiah upon the earth. 

I interpret that reign as a Time of Peace and Love regardless on one's religious beliefs, and the end of an "age", not the end of the world. I also don't think it will be a pleasant passage, as greed/power doesn't give up easily.

Not everyone follows the Judea-Christian beliefs, but most of us in this country have grown up exposed to them, along with the many other religious faiths around the world that hold in common the belief in good vs. evil. 

However, I think in order to wipe out Evil, there will have to be a change in Consciousness rather than mass destruction with few survivors. The possibility that Monsanto, on Dec. 21, 2012, would awaken with a change of heart staggers my imagination.

Wanna Move to Peru?

Peru has officially passed a law banning genetically modified ingredients anywhere within the country for the next ten years.

In a massive blow to multinational agribiz corporations such as Monsanto, Bayer, and Dow, Peru has officially passed a law banning genetically modified ingredients anywhere within the country for a full decade before coming up for another review.

Peru’s Plenary Session of the Congress made the decision 3 years after the decree was written despite previous governmental pushes for GM legalization due largely to the pressure from farmers that together form the Parque de la Papa in Cusco, a farming community of 6,000 people that represent six communities.

They worry the introduction of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) will compromise the native species of Peru, such as the giant white corn, purple corn and, of course, the famous species of Peruvian potatoes. Anibal Huerta, President of Peru’s Agrarian Commission, said the ban was needed to prevent the ”danger that can arise from the use of biotechnology.”

While the ban will curb the planting and importation of GMOs in the country, a test conducted by the Peruvian Association of Consumers and Users (ASPEC) at the time of the ban’s implementation found that 77 percent of supermarket products tested contained GM contaminants.

”Research by ASPEC confirms something that Peruvians knew all along: GM foods are on the shelves of our markets and wineries, and consumers buy them and take them into their homes to eat without knowing it. Nobody tells us, no one says anything, which involves a clear violation of our right to information,” Cáceres told Gestión. GMOs are so prevalent in the Americas that it is virtually impossible to truly and completely block them, whether through pollination or being sneaked in as processed foods.

“There is an increasing consensus among consumers that they want safe, local, organic fresh food and that they want the environment and wildlife to be protected,” wrote Walter Pengue from the University of Buenos Aires in Argentina, in a recent statement concerning GMOs in South America. “South American countries must proceed with a broader evaluation of their original agricultural policies and practices using the precautionary principle.”

Source

Note: This decree was signed into effect on April 15th 2011. I guess agribiz corporations didn't want it widely known!

Speaking out of both sides of the mouth

The most important opportunity to affect the control the Corporate Agribusiness has over our foods is Proposition 37 on the California ballot in November. Prop. 37 is the Right to Know (what's in our food), mandating GMO labelling.

All Proposition 37 does is require clear labels letting consumers know if foods are genetically modified. We already have food labels showing nutrition, allergy information and other facts consumers want to know. This measure simply adds information telling us if food is produced using genetic engineering, which is when food is modified in a laboratory by adding DNA from other plants, animals, bacteria or viruses.    

I think the California vote on Prop. 37 is perhaps even more important that the Presidential vote. After all, no matter who is elected President, he will still have 535 Voting Members of Congress to deal with anything he wants to change or accomplish. However, if Prop. 37 passes, it will ultimately inform every one of us in the U.S. who purchases food because it will be too costly and cumbersome for corporations to have different food labels for foods sold in different states.

Most of us imagine that anything "organic" (by Law non-GMO) would automatically be on the side to defeat the proposition, yet many large corporations that produce or market organic foods have helped put over $26 MILLION into the war chest to defeat the initiative. How can these corporations market some foods as good for us, yet refuse to label what's in the other foods they market?

        Kellogg’s (Kashi, Bear Naked, Morningstar Farms);
        General Mills (Muir Glen, Cascadian Farm, Larabar);
        Dean Foods (Horizon, Silk, White Wave);
        Smucker’s (R.W. Knudsen, Santa Cruz Organic);
        Coca-Cola (Honest Tea, Odwalla);
        Safeway (‘O’ Organics);
        Kraft (Boca Burgers and Back to Nature);
        Con-Agra (Orville Redenbacher’s Organic, Hunt’s Organic, Lightlife); and
        PepsiCo (Naked Juice, Tostito’s Organic, Tropicana Organic).

On the other hand, there are many smaller organic leaders supporting the Proposition. By enlarging the poster above, you can see the companies donating to the cause. Please support them and their products when possible!  

The current Administration has deregulated more genetically modified foods than ever. From plums to alfalfa and even sugar beets. But it's not just that so many crops are modified (93% of all soy, 86% of corn, and 93% of canola seeds are now genetically modified) it's that there's currently no labeling system in place so that we know what we're buying. 

We are one of the few industrialized nations that doesn't require labeling of GMO foods. In the past year alone 19 U.S. states have attempted to pass GMO labeling laws, but each time Monsanto and biotech lobbyists have threatened to sue. Only Alaska, with its huge wild salmon industry, has passed a biotech seafood labeling law.

Most of us would like to believe that our foods come from nature, but that's far from the case. In 40 countries, including Australia, Japan and all European Union nations, there are significant restrictions or outright bans on the production of GMOs because they are not considered proven safe.

Update: Giant pesticide and big food companies have so far donated more than $37 million to defeat Yes on 37 to label GMOs in California. Earlier this spring, the Grocery Manufacturers of America (GMA), of which Monsanto is a leading partner, declared that defeating Prop 37 was its single highest priority for 2012.

Monsanto just funneled another $2.9 million dollars to defeat California’s Prop 37 to label genetically engineered foods. This comes on top of their $4.2 million dollar pledge only weeks ago and brings Monsanto’s combined total to more than $7.1 million dollars!  That’s a huge pile of cash and it’s dedicated to only one thing – denying us the Right to Know what’s in our food.

My Question: Did Monsanto just kick in more $$ because they are concerned the People might actually WIN??

.

Eat Carbon Credits or Carbon-based Foods?

We all have read or heard about Carbon Credits, and other Environmental Credits accruing to Big Business... but I don't really understand all the logic in them. If an industrial plant produces too many greenhouse gases, it seems they can simply buy carbon credits from someone doing a better job for the environment, and continue polluting. I think partly it's just another shell game in financial manipulation, because it surely hasn't improved the air quality, ozone layer, global warming and greenhouse gases that I can see. 

There's a lot of talk encouraging us all to reduce our "carbon footprint" (and some of us do) but somehow I don't think we will run out of carbon based fuels (wood, oil, coal and natural gas) before mankind makes it almost impossible to grow anything edible on this lovely blue planet. Human beings are carbon-based, and our foods are carbon-based. How does buying and selling carbon credits help us grow more and healthier foods and live a healthier life?

On the other hand, burying small bits of carbon (natural charcoal, NOT charcoal briquettes) in my garden certainly improves the health of the soil, and lately I see many more earthworms and other visible organisms. (I can't see the gazillion others without a microscope.) I'm also beginning to see more and healthier production in the very earliest beds I amended with biochar 5 years ago, and I finally feel like I'm getting to be a better steward. Bits of carbon in the soil sequester carbon dioxide, which plants need to grow and produce fruit, grain or flowers. Sometime back, I wrote a piece on Biochar for DavesGarden.com. Reading it will give you some background if biochar is unfamiliar to you.

Our nearby land grant university got a grant of several million dollars to build a pyrolysis unit to burn factory (CAFO) chicken house waste into biochar about 3-4 years ago. The problem for me is that the biochar they made was such fine powder that most of it blew away during the demonstration I saw, long before it could be incorporated into the topsoil (even on a day with very little breeze). Plus, it was dirty and nasty to breathe that black dust while it was being applied.

I have a wood burning stove as my back-up emergency heat, although I seldom need it much. The small bits of charred wood left among the ashes are filtered out later and scattered across my garden. (I break them up with a hammer if they are larger than a walnut, but it's dirty work.) Since I don't till anymore, I cover the bits with a thick layer of compost and within a year or two it all becomes part of the soil, loose and fertile. Eventually that soil will be many inches deep, rather than the scant layer of topsoil that hasn't washed into the creek over many, many years! I don't walk on much of my garden, so it's not compacted other than on the paths.

The're doing it again: "Raw" Almonds

http://www.flickr.com/photos/healthaliciousness/5604663581/

Many years ago, raw almonds were part of my daily diet. Adele Davis advised 3 raw almonds daily to avoid cancer. (Almonds contain laetril, a cancer-fighting agent.) In the outbreak of salmonella in raw almonds a few years back, thirty-three people became ill, but no one died. (Contrast that to the thousands of deaths caused by prescription drugs each year!)

"Almonds have tremendous health benefits. They are an excellent source of manganese, copper, and vitamin B2 (all of which are important for the body’s energy production). Almonds are rich in magnesium, phosphorus, zinc and vitamin E, and high in health-promoting monounsaturated fatty acids and many other nutrients.

Raw almonds (with no heat applied) are particularly healthy. According to USDA data, raw almonds have more calcium, iron, potassium, fiber, manganese, and vitamin E. By insisting that raw almonds be “sterilized,” USDA is trying to take an extremely healthy food sound scary—something the public needs to be “protected” from, when actually the public may be more at risk from the chemical used to treat the nuts. Raw, organic almonds are not scary. As we point out in our brief, no salmonella outbreaks have been associated with organic almonds because they follow higher-quality processing controls. Therefore, organic raw almonds should not have been subject to the mandate in the first place." Source
 

So now all US raw almonds are being sterilized "for our safety" but the problem is HOW, and the effects of different methods, plus lack of labeling to tell us which method was used. Over 68% of US almonds are treated with PPO.

"Imported almonds are not subject to the almond rule (how is that for logic?)—so if consumers want real raw almonds, they will have to buy the imported ones. What a tragedy that our public policy is deliberately hurting the domestic market—especially small organic farmers, who need every sale they can get!

According to the Almond Board, five methods of “pasteurization” are permitted: oil roasting, dry roasting, blanching, steam processing, and the use of propylene oxide (PPO). A sixth method involved irradiating the almonds, and this was used for a number of years, but now the Almond Board states that “Almond pasteurization does not include irradiation.”

What is PPO you ask?

PPO is an extremely volatile liquid used in the production of polyurethane plastics. It was once used as a racing fuel, but was banned by both the National Hot Rod and American Motorcycle Racing Associations for being too dangerous—it’s so volatile that it is used in fuel–air bombs.

The material safety data sheet for PPO warns:
"Causes gastrointestinal irritation with nausea, vomiting and diarrhea. May cause central nervous system depression, characterized by excitement, followed by headache, dizziness, drowsiness, and nausea. Advanced stages may cause collapse, unconsciousness, coma and possible death due to respiratory failure. Aspiration of material into the lungs may cause chemical pneumonitis, which may be fatal…. May cause reproductive and fetal effects. Laboratory experiments have resulted in mutagenic effects. May cause heritable genetic damage."

According to the EPA, acute (short-term) exposure to PPO has caused eye and respiratory tract irritation, and skin irritation and necrosis. It’s also a mild central nervous system depressant and causes inflammatory lesions of the nasal cavity, trachea, and lungs. In animal studies, PPO causes neurological effects and tumors, leading EPA to classify it as a class B2 carcinogen, and California, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Minnesota, and Massachusetts to list it on their state right-to-know registries as a known carcinogen.

Certainly the first three methods completely cook the nuts, so they are no longer raw. Of the last two, steam causes a marked reduction in nutrient content and partially cooks the nuts, and PPO is, according to the EPA, a “probable human carcinogen.”

So for raw almonds, your choice is to either cook them or make them potentially toxic. Steam treatments are running up to $2.5 million, whereas PPO starts at $500,000. Which do you think most farmers choose?

The “pasteurization” rule was introduced in 2007 in response to a string of salmonella outbreaks linked to large almond processing plants in 2001 and 2004. California’s Almond Board colluded with the USDA to propose mandatory “sterilization” across the industry, and the USDA agreed to implement and enforce the new rule.

Raw organic almonds not treated with PPO may be heat pasteurized with steam. But heat may oxidize the omega 3 fatty acids in almonds, potentially turning them rancid and producing free radicals, which are believed to play a role in the development of cancer and other degenerative diseases.

Even worse, there is no labeling requirement to show that almonds have been steamed or treated with PPO, so consumers are misled into thinking they are eating truly natural raw almonds when in fact they are not. Labeling is an absolute necessity for consumers to make an informed choice.

When the rule was instituted, raw and organic almond farmers were outraged and pushed back. They fought the USDA, and in 2010 a federal appeals court ruled they could challenge USDA’s almond regulation.

Now ANH-USA has submitted an Amicus Curiae brief in support of the plaintiffs (an amicus curiae, Latin for “friend of the court,” is an outsider who provides information to assist the court in making its decision). Our brief will allow ANH-USA to raise issues that may not be brought up by the plaintiffs during regular trial proceedings. It will also let us take a stand against the USDA and call attention to the public policy and public health implications of the almond rule.

Besides the aforementioned problems with the “pasteurization” process, there are serious legal concerns about the rule-making process. USDA did not go through the normal, open public hearing and comment process when issuing the almond rule. The agency contacted only 115 select almond growers and handlers—out of a total of over 6,000—to invite them to comment on the proposed rule, and consumers and retailers were almost universally unaware of the proposed rule. Only eighteen public comments were received from the entire country.

ANH-USA sees the almond rule as a slippery slope, because for the first time USDA is establishing minimum “standards” for how farm products are processed, setting a dangerous precedent for the potential sterilization of other organic agricultural products. Will they try to irradiate spinach, or will they realize the process will actually destroy the delicate product? We argue in our brief that the USDA is not a food safety agency and thus such decisions are not within their mandate.

The lack of labeling is arguably a violation of Section 5 of the FTC Act, which declares unfair or deceptive acts or practices to be unlawful. A “deceptive act” includes a “misleading omission.” Labeling steam-heated almonds as raw is intentionally misleading; and we would argue that not disclosing the fact that almonds are being treated with PPO, when the public, if they knew of the practice, would surely refuse to buy them, is extraordinarily deceptive.
Source

Fined for Hosting a Small Birthday Party?

This is simply outrageous, and unacceptable.

"In April, Fauquier County, Virginia threatened Martha Boneta, owner of a small farm in Paris, VA, with thousands of dollars in fines for a series of alleged violations, including hosting "an event" on her farm without obtaining a special events permit.

The event? A small birthday party for the 10-year old daughter of a close friend, Robin Verity.

Martha was also cited for selling produce directly to consumers from her farm without a license. But Ms. Boneta paid for and received a county-approved business license for a "retail farm shop" in June, 2011. However, just one month later, the county Board of Supervisors approved an amendment that restricted "farm sales", and began issuing citations to farmers in the area.

Farmers in the area believe this is a violation of Virginia's "Right to Farm Act", which bars governments from restricting the rights of farmers from earning a living, so they orchestrated a protest during Martha's Board of Zoning Appeals hearing on August 2nd, 2012. (She lost the Appeal, btw.)

Increasing economic freedom matters to people like Martha. But it also matters to consumers everywhere who should be free to choose the foods they want and buy directly from the farm that produced them." Source

Knowing Your Local Farmers

Photo by Watershed Post

Meat recalls... I get bulletins almost every day from FSIS (the USDA Food Safety and Inspection Service) about meat recalls. It's disgusting. This month, Cargill recalled 29,000 pounds, (more than 14 tons) of ground beef as a salmonella outbreak sickened dozens of people in seven US states. 

I follow a blog about permaculture written by a medical doctor serving in the US military, and he also writes for AgriTrue.com, where he posted some interesting comments about beef recalls.

"First, this is a lot of meat. I wondered how many steers (or old dairy cows) it takes to make 14 tons of ground beef. This is not such a simple question to answer. Was the beef made from mostly old dairy cows, which would be used almost entirely for ground beef, or was the beef from large-breed, healthy steers, which would be used for steaks, roasts, and other cuts, with a much smaller portion going into ground beef production? Let’s for arguments sake pick a weight number somewhere in the middle of the two realms… 500 lbs. This would mean that it would take 56 animals to produce 14 tons of ground meat.

Unfortunately, this recall pales in comparison to the 71,500 tons of beef recalled in 2008. Using our math, that would be over 280,000 animals “wasted”.  

 

I also thought about how these types of recalls are really a product of large scale agriculture. Is there anything inherently wrong with large scale agriculture? Well, I don’t know. I do know that there are a lot of problems that arise from the practices associated with it. I know that there is a lot of waste. I know that there is a lot of environmental damage. I know that the product being produced is typically far inferior in flavor and nutrition. I know that when a mistake is made, that mistake is proportionately as large as the corporation behind it. So, yeah, maybe there is something inherently wrong with large scale agriculture.

Now, I also had to admit that there can be contamination and illness issues from small, local producers. However, these issues are going to be significantly smaller. They will affect substantially fewer people. In addition, when it is a smaller operation, fewer mistakes are made. This is just logical. When you are only processing five animals from your farm, you will have much greater attention to detail. Your mind won’t start to drift and daydream because you are doing something new the whole time. You will not be lulled into autopilot as you do the same thing over and over again. Unfortunately, this is exactly what happens on the factory floors of the large animal processing facilities. Of course I understand that the small scale beef producer rarely processes his own meat, but the point is that smaller is usually safer."

His point is well taken by me. I buy beef from a man who slaughters only half a dozen beef a year. I know how he raises them, and I know how he amends the soil that grows the grasses they eat. I don't much like the processing facility he uses, but it's the only one for many, many miles around. (The USDA inspector has a permanent office there.) They make as much money from the non-meaty parts (offal, hides, hooves, etc.) sold to outside buyers as they do processing the meats for local farmers.

This leads me into our drought conditions and the price of feed for CAFO beef, which are mostly grain-fed, but that's for another post. 

Indentured Politicians - What's in it for Them??

I came across an interesting term recently, new to me but maybe not to you. It really explains a LOT! The term is "Indentured Politicians". Does that need any explanation? LOL.

But just in case it needs explanation, "indentured politicians" are those who "owe favors" to the big contributors to their election campaigns, and the politicians return the "favor" by voting in favor those contributors when new laws (and other regulatory federal legislation) come up for votes, rather than voting the requirements of the population they are charged to represent. I'm posting my thoughts about this here because I believe it explains why the regulatory agencies for our food systems have gone bonkers.

When it takes millions of dollars (or sometimes billions of dollars depending on the office sought) to be successful in a political campaign, is it any wonder why big corporations see an advantage to finance a candidate who will favor the corporation's interests in future legislation?

One interesting question I have, is why a candidate will spend millions of dollars campaigning for a position that pays far less than they spend to get there? What else is in it for them? The current salary (2011-2012) for rank-and-file members of the House and Senate is $174,000 per year. House Representatives are elected for a 2 year term, and Senate representatives for 6 years.

In order for a member of the House of Congress to qualify for a pension, they would have to be elected 3 times, for a total 6 year payout of $1,044,000, which is far less total salary than what they spent to get it. A Senator only has to serve 1 term (6 years) to qualify for a pension; same pay for 1 Senate term of 6 years that a Congressional Representative gets for 3 terms (6 years, $1,044,000), far less than either spent to get there.

So, where's the payoff for election to federal office, when you consider cost to get there versus salary once there? It certainly IS NOT in the salary, and probably not even in Employee Benefits, although the overall "esteem" of the Office no doubt strokes their ego. That STILL doesn't cut it in the money balance.

• In a complex system of calculations, administered by the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, congressional pay rates also affect the salaries for federal judges and other senior government executives.
• During the Constitutional Convention, Benjamin Franklin considered proposing that elected government officials not be paid for their service. Other Founding Fathers, however, decided otherwise.
• From 1789 to 1855, members of Congress received only a per diem (daily payment) of $6.00 while in session, except for a period from December 1815 to March 1817, when they received $1,500 a year. Members began receiving an annual salary in 1855, when they were paid $3,000 per year. ($3,000 of 1855 dollars would be worth: $78,947.37 in 2012)

Please note that Members of Congress have to serve at least 5 years to receive a pension.

The amount of a congressperson's pension depends on the years of service and the average of the highest 3 years of his or her salary. By law, the starting amount of a Member's retirement annuity may not exceed 80% of his or her final salary. (80% of the current pay of $174,000 is $139,200. I could live on that!)

President's Salary
Effective January 1, 2001, the annual salary of the president of the United States was increased to $400,000 per year, including a $50,000 expense allowance. Please note that the Presidential salary doubled in 2001.

The increase was approved as part of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act (Public Law 106-58), passed in the closing days of the 106th Congress.

"Sec. 644. (a) Increase in Annual Compensation.--Section 102 of title 3, United States Code, is amended by striking '$200,000' and inserting '$400,000'. (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section shall take effect at noon on January 20, 2001."

Vice President's Salary
The salary of the vice president is currently (for 2011) $230,700. (BTW, who IS our VP [yes, I do know his name] and what does he do? I never see his name in the news.)

Presidential Retirement and Maintenance
Under the Former Presidents Act, each former president is paid a lifetime, taxable pension that is equal to the annual rate of basic pay for the head of an executive federal department -- $199,700 in 2011 -- the same annual salary paid to secretaries of the Cabinet agencies.

Each former president and vice president may also take advantage of funds allocated by Congress to help facilitate their transition to private life. These funds are used to provide suitable office space, staff compensation, communications services, and printing and postage associated with the transition. As an example, Congress authorized a total of $1.5 million for the transition expenses of outgoing president George H.W. Bush and Vice President Dan Quayle.

So, where IS the payoff? It sure doesn't appear to favor Joe Citizen who voted for Representation in Congress.

Tipping Points in Food Wars, and Choice

I often wonder if there will be a point where public outcry against GMO's will tip the balance in our favor. Surely that should have happened by now because 93% of Americans are said to be in favor of GMO labeling, but maybe that "tipping point" is only measured by the ballot box? If that's the sole indicator, we are in trouble because authenticated reports of electronic manipulation/fraud of cast ballots are all over the internet, and there is no way to know if the pronounced results of any counted ballots is truly real or not.

Right now, the fate of GMO labeling in the US rests largely in the hands of voters in California, IF they can get GMO labeling on the November ballot... and IF we can believe the ballot counts. California is the 8th largest economy in the world, and the 5th largest supplier of food in the world.

Ballot initiatives are simple in theory, but obscenely expensive in practice because they often rely heavily on television. Companies like Monsanto clearly have the dollars to spend on lobbying against the initiative. A 2004 GMO-labeling ballot initiative attempt in Oregon failed when supporters put up only $100,000 compared to the $5.5 million that came form a group calling themselves “Coalition Against the Costly Labeling Law” which included Monsanto, DuPont, Croplife, and Conagra, to name a few.

 

Then there’s the question of if or when Right to Know legislation passes, whether it’ll be held up in court when Big Ag lawyers drag it there... which is probable. Their argument will likely be that food labeling belongs in the federal domain and should not be a state issue. And of course, we know who's money is most influential in the federal domain.

For the average consumer like me, that leaves only a few safe food choices: grow my own from certified (and possibly even organic) non-GMO seed; buy grass-fed meat from local farmer's who also use only safe seed to grow their produce; and do NOT buy any processed foods or foods requiring any label at all, because surely GMO's are hiding there in chemical terms. 

Although I do not buy into the mania of many of the Survivalist's groups about hording foods, I do think it is prudent to have provisions against possible disasters from storms, drought, etc. However, since President Obama signed the new Executive Order "National Defense Resources Preparedness" on March 16, 2012, I'm having second thoughts about what edibles I grow in my garden, since my gardens are up for grabs under the new E.O. I am also a little concerned by the E.O. because by it, only Obama can decide what constitutes a "state of emergency". 

My personal "state of emergency" is now the gasoline prices hitting $4 a gallon plus most foods from the grocery store being harmful to my health. I wonder what the President really considers a "state of emergency"?

This year in my garden, I am leaning strongly towards including a lot of edible weeds and other foodstuffs that most would not recognize as edible, yet will nourish me. Are they gonna come and dig up my dandelions? LOL

 

Are You (Unintentionally) Supporting Monsanto??

Are you unintentionally supporting Monsanto? It's that time of year to buy garden seeds, and I was surprised to find out the names of some of the seed companies that Monsanto owns, and for whom Monsanto packages seed. Granted, these may not be GMO seeds (yet) but I hate putting a single penny in Monsanto's pocket. 

I was surprised to see the now very popular onion, "Candy" is a Monsanto-owned seed as is the popular cherry tomato, Sweet Million. I was also surprised to read that Jung Seed, R.H. Shumway, Vermont Bean Seed and Totally Tomatoes are among the Monsanto-owned seed companies.

Several years ago, Monsanto bought Seminis (a seed company that has 40% of the US seed market), and more recently bought De Ruiter Seeds (one of the top vegetable breeders in the world). Monsanto is now in the vegetable seed business for the first time, and it's in big time. More than 55 percent of store bought lettuce, 75 percent of U.S. tomatoes, and 85 percent of peppers now originate through Monsanto's fingers. (Source) Our salad plate is now being dished out by Monsanto!

Although Monsanto has yet to release many genetically modified vegetables into the market, they spend almost 2 million dollars a day on research and development, so GM vegetables are probably not very far away. (Monsanto currently holds the technology for more than 90 percent of the world’s genetically engineered crops, and they also hold thousands of U.S. seed patents without mentioning their alleged theft of heirloom seeds world-wide.) If you see PVP (Plant Variety Protection) listed after a seed or plant name, that means the seed or plant carries a U.S. patent, and Monsanto could own it. Some are listed below... check with the seed companies for others.
 

It's best to remember that Monsanto sells seeds in huge quantities to distributors (even if not Monsanto-owned), who in turn break down the huge bulk units and resell smaller bulk units to seed companies who package them in small seed packs, often with a different 'name' for the same vegetable. So, you may be supporting Monsanto just by purchasing repackaged seeds from "Aunt Sally's Seed Company" (a fictitious seed company used here only for illustration!). Some companies who have signed the Safe Seed Pledge (which only says they are not GMO seeds) may be selling Monsanto seed. The best bet is buying OP (open pollinated), heirloom and/or organic seeds. If you are in doubt about a particular seed, ask the company selling it!

For an alternative way to shop for seed, visit the non-profit Organic Materials Review Institute (OMRI) Organic Seeds Database which lists certified "final handlers" for organic seed. List is by produce. Pick a vegetable and find a seller. Also, Here's a list by region of safe-seed companies, and notes about each company.

Listed below are some Monsanto-owned seed companies, and then a list of some Monsanto-owned seed varieties by name. If you buy from ANY of these companies, or buy any of the varieties listed, you are putting money in Monsanto's pockets. Monsanto says this on their website: "Monsanto offers the world’s vegetable growers more than 4,000 distinct seed varieties representing more than 20 species. Monsanto’s vegetable seed business serves open-field and protected culture customers through its brands: Seminis, De Ruiter Seeds and regional brands."

Here are some of the brand names that Monsanto owns and 'packages' their seeds as:

American Seeds

Asgrow

Campbell

DeKalb

De Ruiter

Diener Seeds

Fielder's Choice

Fontanelle

Gold Country Seed

Hawkeye

Heartland

Heritage Seeds

Holdens

HPS Seed

Hubner Seed

icorn

Jung Seed

Kruger Seeds

Lewis Hybrids

Peotec

Poloni

Rea Hybrids

R.H. Shumway

Seeds of the World

Seminis

Seymour's Selected Seeds

Specialty

Stewart

Stone Seed

Totally Tomatoes

Trelay

Vermont Bean Seed Company

Western Seeds

(Source) 

Here are a few of the variety names owned by Monsanto (there were links where one could click on a type for more of any variety name, but the Seminis website Administor has blocked the links).
Edit: I discovered you can go to this page and find the variety names of many of the Seminis seeds; I have not found a similar site for De Ruiter seeds.

Beans: Brio, Eureka, EZ Gold, Goldrush, Kentucky King, Lynx, Xera...
 

Broccoli: Captain, Heritage, Liberty, Packman, more...
 

Carrot: Nutri-Red, Sweet Sunshine, Karina, Chantenay hybrids, Chantilly, Lariat
 

Cauliflower: Cheddar, Fremont, Minuteman, more...
 

Cucumber : Babylon, Dasher II, Daytona, Homemade Pickles, Speedway, Sweet Slice, Yellow Submarine, Sweeter Yet...link to De Ruiter cucumber list...
 

Eggplant: Black Beauty, Dancer, Fairy Tale, Gretel, Hansel, Tango, Twilight...De Ruiter Eggplants...
 

Lettuce: Baby Star, Blackjack, Esmeralda, Lolla Rossa, Monet, Red Butterworth, Red Sails, Red Tide, Summer time...

Melons: Alaska, Bush Whopper, Casablanca, Dixie Jumbo, Early Crisp, Stars and Stripes, Sugarnut, more...

Okra: Cajun Delight

Onion: Arsenal, Candy, Hamlet, Mars, Red Zeppelin, Superstar, many more...

Peppers: Aristotle, Biscayne, Camelot, Caribbean Red, Cherry Bomb, Dulce, Early Sunsation, Fat and Sassy, King Arthur, Northstar, Red Knight, Serrano del Sol, Sahuaro, Super Chili, Valencia, many more including De Ruiter pepper varities...

Pumpkin: Buckskin Pumpkin, Orange Smoothie, Prizewinner, more...

Spinach: Bolero, Cypress, Melody, Unipack 151, many more...

Squash: Autumn Delight, Blackjack, Bush Delicata, Butterstick, Daisy, Early Butternut, Fancycrook, Gold Rush, Latino, Lolita, Patty Green Tint, Really Big Butternut, Seneca (all), Sungreen, Sunny Delight, Table Ace...

Tomato: Baby Girl, Big Beef, Beefmaster, Beaufort, Celebrity, Favorita, First Lady I and II, Early Girl, Geronimo, Golden Girl, Maxifort, Pink Girl, Sunguard, Sun Chief Sweet, Sweet Million, Trust... and more De Ruiter tomato varieties...

Watermelon: Bambino, Crimson Glory, Royal Flush, Royal Star, Stargazer, Starbright, Stars and Stripes, Tiger Baby, Yellow Doll

Many Thanks for the compilation of the above information all in one place to Inspiration Green.

"Pink Slime" in Hamburger, what about Chicken???

This is mechanically separated chicken, an invention of the late 20th century. This particular paste, chicken -- is the main ingredient in chicken nuggets, chicken hot dogs, chicken bologna, and an ingredient in things like pepperoni, salami, jerky etc, etc. Mechanically separated chicken is also treated with ammonia for sterilization purposes, just as is Pink Slime. If you see the words 'finely textured' before the name of the meat, this is what you are eating...

Someone figured out in the 1960′s that meat processors can eke out a few more percent of profit from chickens, turkeys, pigs, and cows by scraping the bones 100% clean of meat. This is done by machines, not humans, by passing bones leftover after the initial cutting through a high pressure sieve. The paste you see in the picture above is the result.

The industry calls this method AMR – Advanced Meat Recovery.

The definition of "meat" was amended in December 1994 to include any "meat" product that is produced by advanced meat/bone separation machinery. "This meat is comparable in appearance, texture, and composition to meat trimmings and similar meat products derived by hand." This machinery separates meat from bone by scraping, shaving, or pressing the meat from the bone without breaking or grinding the bone. Product produced by advanced meat recovery (AMR) machinery can be labeled using terms associated with hand-deboned product (e.g., "pork trimmings" and "ground pork").

Mechanically Separated Meat (MSM)
Mechanically separated meat is a paste-like and batter-like meat product produced by forcing bones, with attached edible meat, under high pressure through a sieve or similar device to separate the bone from the edible meat tissue.

Mechanically Separated Poultry (MSP)
Mechanically separated poultry is a paste-like and batter-like poultry product produced by forcing bones, with attached edible tissue, through a sieve or similar device under high pressure to separate bone from the edible tissue. Mechanically separated poultry has been used in poultry products since the late 1960's. In 1995, a final rule on mechanically separated poultry said it was safe and could be used without restrictions. However, it must be labeled as "mechanically separated chicken or turkey" in the product's ingredients statement. 

The final rule became effective November 4, 1996. Hot dogs can contain any amount of mechanically separated chicken or turkey.
Source

Are you really comfortable now with the meats the supermarkets are selling, or those in the fast food drive-throughs? Actually I do not blame them in general... they just buy a product they are told is edible (and aren't we all gullible?), and sell it to us. I blame the USDA and FSIS for allowing the corporate pressures and financial contributions of BigAg to determine what we eat.

Monsanto Threatens Vermont

The world’s most hated corporation is at it again, this time in Vermont.

"Despite overwhelming public support and support from a clear majority of Vermont’s Agriculture Committee, Vermont legislators are dragging their feet on a proposed GMO labeling bill. Why? Because Monsanto has threatened to sue the state if the bill passes.

The popular legislative bill requiring mandatory labels on genetically engineered food (H-722) is languishing in the Vermont House Agriculture Committee, with only four weeks left until the legislature adjourns for the year. Despite thousands of emails and calls from constituents who overwhelmingly support mandatory labeling, despite the fact that a majority (6 to 5) of Agriculture Committee members support passage of the measure, Vermont legislators are holding up the labeling bill and refusing to take a vote.

Monsanto has used lawsuits or threats of lawsuits for 20 years to force unlabeled genetically engineered foods on the public, and to intimidate farmers into buying their genetically engineered seeds and hormones. When Vermont became the first state in the nation in 1994 to require mandatory labels on milk and dairy products derived from cows injected with the controversial genetically engineered Bovine Growth Hormone, Monsanto’s minions sued in Federal Court and won on a judge’s decision that dairy corporations have the first amendment “right” to remain silent on whether or not they are injecting their cows with rBGH - even though rBGH has been linked to severe health damage in cows and increased cancer risk for humans, and is banned in much of the industrialized world, including Europe and Canada.

Monsanto wields tremendous influence in Washington, DC and most state capitals. The company’s stranglehold over politicians and regulatory officials is what has prompted activists in California to bypass the legislature and collect 850,000 signatures to place a citizens’ Initiative on the ballot in November 2012. The 2012 California Right to Know Act will force mandatory labeling of GMOs and to ban the routine practice of labeling GMO-tainted food as “natural.”

On the other side of the fence, Monsanto’s lobbyist and Vermont mouthpiece, Margaret Laggis employed inaccurate, unsubstantiated, fear-mongering claims to make Monsanto’s case. She warned during the hearings that if this law were passed, there would not be enough corn, canola, and soybean seed for Vermont farmers to plant.

Laggis lied when she said that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) had done exhaustive feeding tests on genetically modified foods. Hansen corrected her, testifying that all of the GMO feeding tests submitted to the FDA were conducted by Monsanto and other GMO corporations and that the FDA had not done any GMO testing of its own.

Laggis lied again when she claimed that a recent Canadian study showing that more than 90% pregnant women had high levels of a genetically modified bacterial pesticide in their blood resulted from them “eating too much organic food” during pregnancy. Again, Hansen refuted this nonsense by pointing out that the Bacillus thuingensis (Bt) bacterium spray used by organic growers is chemically and materially different from the GMO Bt bacterium which showed up in the pregnant women’s blood and the umbilical cords of their fetuses. Hanson pointed that the high levels of Monsanto’s mutant Bt in the women’s blood was due to the widespread cultivation of GMO corn, cotton, soy, and canola.

The committee heard testimony that European Union studies have been conducted which showed that even short-term feeding studies of GMO crops caused 43.5% of male test animals to suffer kidney abnormalities, and 30.8% of female test animals to suffer liver abnormalities. Studies also have shown that the intestinal lining of animals fed GMO food was thickened compared to the control animals. All of these short-term results could become chronic, and thus precursors to cancer.

(Studies like these have prompted 50 nations around the world to pass laws requiring mandatory labels on GMO foods.)

In the end, none of the scientific testimony mattered. Monsanto operatives simply reverted to their usual tactics: They openly threatened to sue the state.

Unfortunately in the US, industry and the government continue to side with Monsanto rather than the 90% of consumers who support labeling. Monsanto’s biotech bullying is a classic example of how the 1% control the rest of us, even in Vermont, generally acknowledged as the most progressive state in the nation.

What it really comes down to this: Elected officials are abandoning the public interest and public will in the face of corporate intimidation."

If you live in Vermont, activists are organizing a protest at the state capital on April 12 to coincide with the next round of hearings on H-722, and are asking residents to write letters, make calls, and e-mail their legislators and the Governor. For more information, please go to the website  or the Facebook page of the Vermont Right to Know Campaign.

~Source

Buy Safe Seeds, guaranteed not GMO seeds

Several folks have asked where I buy my seeds. I really don't buy many, except for new things I want to try. Most of my seeds are my own saved seeds, or from swaps with friends.

Safe Seed Program

When I do buy seeds, I ONLY buy from a company that has signed the Safe Seed Pledge.

Here's the Pledge:

"Agriculture and seeds provide the basis upon which our lives depend. We must protect this foundation as a safe and genetically stable source for future generations. For the benefit of all farmers, gardeners and consumers who want an alternative, we pledge that we do not knowingly buy or sell genetically engineered seeds or plants. The mechanical transfer of genetic material outside of natural reproductive methods and between genera, families or kingdoms, poses great biological risks as well as economic, political, and cultural threats. We feel that genetically engineered varieties have been insufficiently tested prior to public release. More research and testing is necessary to further asses the potential risks of genetically engineered seeds. Further, we wish to support agricultural progress that leads to healthier soils, genetically diverse agricultural ecosystems and ultimately people and communities."

The Safe Seed Resource List by State

For more information contact: 

The Safe Seed Project 

The Council for Responsible Genetics

5 Upland Road, Suite 3

Cambridge, MA 02140

Telephone: (617) 868-0870

Permaculture??

Bill Mollison and his student (at the time) David Holmgren did a great thing when they developed philosophy of Permaculture in the 1970's. It's a topic that greatly interests me because it's as much about us, and how we treat each other and our planet, as it is about growing things. The more I learn about gardening, the more I realize how my garden is connected to everything (just like my self and my body), and how we/it all has to work together to succeed and survive.

But really, what IS Permaculture? For years I have heard that word, and read a smattering about it online here and there, but not enough to make any real sense to me until I read Toby Hemenway's Gaia's Garden last year. That book gave me a basis for understanding permaculture, at least in a general way, and I'm now firmly convinced that permaculture is the very best, and perhaps the only way to get us out of the mess we've gotten ourselves into.

Albert Einstein said, "We cannot solve the significant problems we face at the same level of thinking we were at when we created them."

"Permaculture is a philosophy of working with, rather than against nature; of protracted and thoughtful observation rather than protracted and thoughtless labour; of looking at plants and animals in all their functions, rather than treating any area as a single-product system."
~ Bill Mollison (from the permaculture.net website)

This definition of permaculture expresses a basic concept in permaculture - examining and following nature's patterns. Permaculture advocates designing human systems based on natural ecosystems. Permaculture draws from several other disciplines including organic farming, agroforestry, sustainable development, and applied ecology.  But, there are many other definitions of permaculture, just as there are many definitions of sustainable living.

The actual term permaculture is a contraction of the words "permanent," "agriculture,” and “culture.” Although the original focus of permaculture was geared towards sustainable food production, the philosophy of permaculture has expanded over time to encompass economic and social systems. It is a dynamic movement that is still evolving. For example, some practitioners are integrating spirituality and personal growth work into the framework of permaculture.

At the very core of premaculture are Ethics, sadly lacking in today's BigAg in my opinion.

The three philosophical ethics of permaculture (in simple form) are:

1. Care of the earth means that our number one priority is taking care of the earth, making sure we don't damage its natural systems so all life systems can continue and multiply.

2. Care of the people means meeting people's needs (having equal access to resources) so that people's lives can be sustained and have a good quality of life as well, but without damaging the earth.

3. Accepting (or setting) limits to population and consumption is realizing that as a human species we cannot continue to increase and also sustain the planet. By governing our own needs, we can set aside resources for the 2 principles above.

I think those are some really exacting standards... but as we begin to embrace them, some wonderful things happen even on a small scale.

"Care of the Earth" happens in both big and small ways, and not just in growing things. I like Hemenway's distinction of horticulture vs. agriculture. He points out that the etymology of  horticulture is the Latin hortus, meaning garden, while the etymology of agriculture is the Latin ager, meaning field. The big difference in planting huge fields and planting gardens could be considered as a part of permaculture.

I remember when I was reading The Celestine Prophecy back in the early 1990's, how one of the Insights was what happened to the plants when he talked to them. They flourished! That's just a tiny personal bit of "care of the earth" although permaculture goes much deeper. What happens when we give plants the real food they need, rather than a chemical soup which ends up harming our ecosystems like our soils and waterways? What happens when we put plants in nifty little plant communities with many diverse neighbors, and each plant contributes something to the success of the whole?

"Care of the Earth" is about what products we use and discard like trash. I fight daily to get my family here to consider the effects of all the cleaning chemicals they use, when hydrogen peroxide and baking soda would suffice. We live on a now almost-dead creek (from pollution); our creek waters flow down to the Holston River where they eventually join up with the French Broad River near Knoxville; there they become the beginning of the Tennessee River... and then they travel together along to the Ohio River and finally join and mingle with the Mighty Mississippi near Cairo, Illinois, and eventually end up in New Orleans and the Gulf of Mexico with the massive floating dead zones created by the polluted rivers. Every individual along the many miles of this creek, and all the rivers downstream, could change some of the dying creeks and rivers by simple "Care of the Earth".

Another biggie is what we allow commercial enterprises do to our Earth... fracking, strip mining, mountaintop removal, nuclear power plant waste products that are hazardous for 10,000+ years... and GMO's. (A bit of scientific research about GMO's show that they reduce sperm count from the get-go; lab tests in rats show GMO's render complete sterility in 3 generations... if you think about it, that's really population control, without consent.)

"Care of the Earth"  is also how we manage our finite resources (oil, natural gas, the metals we mine, water, and the topsoil we wash away) so that we can continue to exist, and still leave some resources for our children and grandchildren. (We should all work on becoming more realistic about what our basic "needs"  vs. "wants" really are.)

Then there is BigAg, with their/our dependence on the rapidly depleting supplies of fossil fuels. The majority of the food we eat world-wide is produced by BigAg, unless we somehow manage to supplement it with a fruit-nut-veggie patch in our yards or our neighborhoods. Having a garden, even if it's just potted tomatoes on a balcony, IS one way we can start to make changes, and assure some nutritionally good foods in our households as we do. (There are many other ways, but a garden is a good one.) Permaculture can be a pathway because it can teach us, among other things, how to increase yield while eliminating dependence on man-made chemical fertilizers. We just have to learn to do as Nature does!

 "Care of the People" is a vast challenge, and is more than just not making war on them, or even just feeding them. Most of us mentally divide "us" and "them", and we weep and gnash our teeth at problems that happen within our immediate family and those we know and care about, whether it's a health problem, an auto accident, or job loss. Of course, we also lament the loss of hundreds of thousands of lives in a catastrophe half way around the world, but it is a detached kind of lament and doesn't really touch us, deep down on some emotional level, like those at home do.

So, when we move manufacturing (sweatshops?) to foreign countries out of our view, we can act detached from the abuses. We prohibit DDT here in the US but sell it overseas, and we can pretend we have eliminated that particular toxin, even though it comes back to us in/on imported foods.

Here's a very simplistic "care of the people" test just in your own personal surroundings... If you work in a large office or plant, very likely there is a person you pass often, with just a cursory nod or "Hello". The next time you pass that person, stop and make a personal comment to them, something like "that color looks good on you"... or "hey, that's a great tie/tattoo/haircut"... just anything more personal than the previous impersonal nods. Watch the reaction... the whole energy pattern changes for the better.

"Accepting Limits to population and consumption"... Years ago, the Chinese limited the number and gender of live children a couple could have. It brought fierce turmoil to their people. But I think we all really KNOW in our hearts the world cannot continue to sustain the projected increase in world population. A big question for everyone is: are you willing to limit your number of children/grandchildren? Or is that just the responsibility of "others" in poorer nations?

But it's NOT just limiting population; it's about limiting resources so everyone has a fair share.

I personally believe that the principles of permaculture could cure the planet from the all the damage conventional chemical agriculture has wrought, and maybe save us from extinction.

The permaculture ideas I know about are wonderful, and I have adopted some of the food forest ideas, which are partially from the Permaculture crowd and partially from others... and they all pretty much follow the Wiki definition, "Permaculture is a theory of ecological design which seeks to develop sustainable human settlements and agricultural horticultural systems, by attempting to model them on natural ecosystems." 

I'd love to take a PDC but it is not likely; the charges for the PDC course vary considerably with location. Here in Virginia and nearby North Carolina, the going rate is well in excess of $1,000... while a friend in upstate New York can find the same PDC certificate course for under $300. I think the design concepts are important, especially the ecological ones, but I want lots of practical information applicable to my situation, too.

I must say, though, that if I had the opportunity (and the money) to take a PDC course from one of the established Permaculture giants like Geoff Lawton or Toby Hemenway, I'd do it in a heartbeat.

If money is an issue, as it is for me, there are some good alternatives to learning about permaculture other than taking a PDC. Unfortunatey for us in the US, much of the available information is for tropical climates, but that is beginning to change as the concepts are becoming more widely known across the US and Canada. There are some permaculture forums on the internet, and several blogs that focus on various aspects of permaculture.

If you learn easily from books, you can buy  Bill Mollison's Permaculture: A Designer's Manual; it sells for around $110. It is the definitive Permaculture design manual in print since 1988, and it is the text book and curriculum for the 72-hour Certificate course in Permaculture Design (PDC). Written for teachers, students and designers, it follows on and greatly enlarges on the initial introductory texts, Permaculture One (1978) and Permaculture Two (1979, currently OOP) both of which are still in demand over twenty years after publication. Very little of the material found in the Designer's Manual is reproduced from the former texts. It covers design methodologies and strategies for both urban and rural applications describing property design and natural farming techniques.

An excellent book if you are just starting out is Gaia's Garden (by Toby Hemenway) for around $20.

Another alternative is to investigate the work of Sepp Holzer, an Austrian man who has done some remarkable things in Natural Farming, much like the great natural farming pioneer, Masanobu Fukuoka. The Holzer Permaculture is a branch of permaculture developed by Sepp independently from the mainstream Permaculture. It is particularly noteworthy because it grew out of practical application and absolutely detached from the scientific community.

By the way, there has been lots of contention over who if anyone controls the legal rights to the word "Permaculture", meaning is it trademarked or copyrighted, and if so, who holds the legal rights to the use of the word. For a long time Bill Mollison claimed to have copyrighted the word permaculture, and his books reflected that on the copyright page, saying "The contents of this book and the word PERMACULTURE are copyright." These statements were largely accepted at face-value within the permaculture community. However, copyright law does not protect names, ideas, concepts, systems, or methods of doing something; it only protects the expression or the description of an idea, not the idea itself. Eventually Mollison acknowledged that he was mistaken and that no copyright protection existed for the word "permaculture". Source