El Tribunal a Monsanto Emite su Opinión Consultiva: Monsanto viola los Derechos Humanos básicos

/by

18 de abril 2017

Contacto : Países Bajos : Tjerk Dalhuisen, +31614699126, tjerk@monsanto-tribunal.org, América Latina : Ercilia Sahores Regeneration International/ +52 5562577901

El Tribunal a Monsanto Emite su Opinión Consultiva : Monsanto viola los Derechos Humanos básicos 

Deben existir mejores regulaciones que protejan a las víctimas de las compañías multinacionales

LA HAYA, Países Bajos – En el día de hoy, los cinco jueces internacionales del Tribunal a Monsanto presentaron la opinión legal que incluye conclusiones claves tanto respecto de la conducta de la transnacional Monsanto como de la necesidad de realizar cambios fundamentales a las leyes que gobiernan a las corporaciones multinacionales.

Los jueces concluyeron que Monsanto se ha involucrado en prácticas que han vulnerado los derechos humanos básicos a un medio ambiente sano, el derecho a la alimentación y el derecho a la salud. Sumado a esto, la conducta de Monsanto ha tenido un impacto negativo sobre la libertad de los científicos de llevar a cabo de manera libre investigaciones indispensables.

Los jueces también concluyeron que a pesar del desarrollo de regulaciones destinadas a proteger el medio ambiente, aún existe una brecha entre compromiso y realidad en la protección del medio ambiente. La ley internacional debe ser precisa y debe reafirmar la protección del medio ambiente y establecer el crimen de ecocidio. El Tribunal concluye que sí el ecocidio fuera reconocido formalmente como un criminal según la ley penal internacional, las actividades de Monsanto posiblemente constituirían un crimen de ecocidio.

En la tercera parte de la opinión consultiva, el Tribunal se enfoca en la brecha cada vez más amplia entre las leyes de derechos humanos y la responsabilidad corporativa. Llama a la necesidad de reivindicar la primacía de las leyes internacionales sobre derechos humanos y medio ambiente. En el marco de la Organización Mundial de Comercio, tratados de comercio bilaterales y en cláusulas de tratados de libre comercio, se han implementado un conjunto de normas jurídicas para proteger los derechos de los inversores. Estas disposiciones tienden a debilitar la capacidad de las naciones de mantener políticas, leyes y prácticas que protejan los derechos humanos y ambientales. Los organismos de las Naciones Unidas deben tomar acción urgente, en caso contrario, cuestiones claves concernientes a la violación de derechos humanos y ambientales serán resueltas por tribunales privados operando completamente fuera del marco de referencia de las Naciones Unidas.

El Tribunal también llama a responsabilizar a actores no-estatales dentro del marco internacional de leyes de derechos humanos. El Tribunal reitera que las compañías multinacionales deberían ser consideradas como actores responsables y deberían ser sujetas a la jurisdicción de la Corte Penal Internacional en el caso de violación de derechos fundamentales. El Tribunal identifica claramente y denuncia las severas disparidades entre los derechos de las compañías multinacionales y sus obligaciones. Por lo tanto, la opinión consultiva alienta a los organismos competentes a proteger la efectividad de los derechos humanos internacionales y la ley ambiental contra la conducta de las compañías multinacionales.

Las precisas conclusiones serán de interés tanto para los críticos de Monsanto y la agricultura industrial como para los accionistas de compañías químicas, especialmente Bayer. La reputación de Monsanto-y de Bayer, en caso de fusión- no mejorará con las conclusiones emitidas por los jueces del Tribunal. Esto traerá a la luz el verdadero costo de la producción y afectará el valor de las acciones de Monsanto(Bayer) en el largo plazo. Aquellas compañías que dañan la salud, los alimentos y el medio ambiente deben y tendrán que rendir cuentas por sus acciones. Esta opinión ahora está en manos de los Estados y las organizaciones de la sociedad civil para que hagan uso de ella, concluyeron los integrantes del Tribunal Monsanto.

Los grupos que han organizado el Tribunal Monsanto son Organic Consumers Association, Navdanya, IFOAM Organics International, Biovision Foundation y Regeneration International.

La opinión de los Jueces del Tribunal (resumen más documento completo) https://www.monsanto-tribunale.org/Resultados_1

Regeneración Internacional, un proyecto de la Asociación de Consumidores Orgánicos, está desarrollando una red global de campesinos, científicos,empresas,activistas,educadores,periodistas,gobiernos y consumidores que promueven y practican la agricultura regenerativa y prácticas de uso de suelo que: proveen alimentos abundantes y nutritivos ;reviven las economías locales, reconstruyen la fertilidad del suelo y la biodiversidad y restituyen la estabilidad climática devolviendo el carbono al suelo, a través de la fotosíntesis. Para saber más, https://consumidoresorganicos.org/ y regenerationinternational.org

El Tribunal Internacional Monsanto es una iniciativa de la sociedad civil para que Monsanto se responsabilice por violaciones a derechos humanos, crímenes contra la humanidad y ecocidio. Prestigiosos jueces escucharon testimonios de víctimas y brindaron una opinión consultiva siguiendo los procedimientos de la Corte Penal Internacional de Justicia. Una asamblea popular paralela, la Asamblea de los Pueblos, brindó un espacio para que movimientos sociales de alrededor del mundo pudieran congregarse, intercambiar ideas y planear el futuro que queremos. El Tribunal y la Asamblea Popular se llevaron a cabo entre el 14 y el 16 de octubre de 2016 en La Haya, Países Bajos. La opinión consultiva fue emitida el 18 de abril de 2017. Para saber más, https://es.monsantotribunal.org/

El Manejo Holístico: Solución Multifuncional a la Desertificación en México

/by

Autor: Gerardo Ruiz | Publicado: 10 abril 2017

Con la intención de apoyar y empoderar a los productores mexicanos que buscan hacer una transición hacia modelos responsables de producción y ser parte de la solución a la desertificación y el cambio climático, Vía Orgánica está organizando el primer Diplomado en Manejo Holístico en el estado de Guanajuato, del 25 de mayo al 5 de junio del 2017.

La sede del diplomado será el Rancho Ecológico y Centro Educativo “Vía Orgánica” ubicado en San Miguel de Allende. El facilitador, Iván Aguirre, está certificado por el Instituto Savory y cuenta con más de 30 años de experiencia en el manejo holístico como consultor y educador. Su rancho en Sonora –La Inmaculada– es uno de los primeros ranchos en México que adoptaron y pusieron en práctica el Manejo Holístico.

15997112531_2a94f5101a_k

Para más información favor de visitar la página del evento:

https://viaorganica.org/eventos/diplomado-de-manejo-holistico-de-savory/.

A nivel mundial, los pastizales, sabanas y matorrales están siendo amenazados por la desertificación antropogénica. La CONAFOR estima que en México, de los 193 millones de hectáreas que componen el territorio nacional, más de 128 millones se encuentran en proceso de desertificación, afectando directamente a las más de 62 millones de personas que habitan en estas regiones. Esto causa que entre 300 mil y 400 mil personas abandonen sus tierras cada año por la degradación de los suelos en México. Este proceso de desertificación ocasiona el aumento de sequías e inundaciones, acelera la pérdida de biodiversidad, es un impulsor del cambio climático y representa enormes costos sociales y económicos para aquellas comunidades que dependen de estos ecosistemas para su sustento.

CSIRO_ScienceImage_607_Effects_of_Drought_on_the_Soil

Innumerables comunidades rurales que habitan en zonas áridas, semi-áridas o subhúmedas -que en México componen 65% del territorio nacional-, se ven afectadas directamente por problemas relacionados con la desertificación: falta de acceso al agua a causa de ríos y pozos que se secan, incremento de la pobreza, propagación de enfermedades infecciosas, poca o nula seguridad alimentaria por fallas en los cultivos y las cosechas, conflictos y violencia social, y la migración de los jóvenes.

Desde los años 60’s Allan Savory, fundador del Instituto Savory, ha promovido la restauración a gran escala de los pastizales del mundo a través de las prácticas de Manejo Holístico y el Pastoreo Holístico Planificado. Los principios del Manejo Holístico enfatizan las interconexiones entre los procesos de los ecosistemas que sustentan pastizales sanos: el ciclo del agua, ciclos de nutrientes, flujos de energía, la biodiversidad y la dinámica de la comunidad biológica. Un enfoque holístico a la administración de las tierras nutre cada uno de estos procesos, además de incorporar las perspectivas socio-culturales, económicas y ecológicas en la toma de decisiones.

Al abordar la complejidad intrínseca de todos los sistemas naturales, el Manejo Holístico ha demostrado su eficacia para revertir la desertificación, regenerar tierras degradadas y ayudar a las comunidades a satisfacer sus necesidades actuales y futuras. Aunque el Manejo Holístico es mayormente aplicado a proyectos que están directamente relacionados con la administración de tierras y recursos naturales, muchas personas han aplicado los mismos principios para la administración y la toma de decisiones a nivel familia, empresa, organización y gobierno.

El Pastoreo Holístico Planificado es uno de los sistemas de planeación que se promueve en el Manejo Holístico. Se utiliza para restaurar pastizales degradados y devolver la productividad de los terrenos. Con base en el conocimiento científico, local y tradicional, el Pastoreo Holístico Planificado restablece la relación evolutiva entre las manadas de animales herbívoros y los pastizales. Para replicar esta relación, el ganado se agrupa en hatos y se va rotando a lo largo del terreno utilizando técnicas tradicionales de pastoreo o cercos eléctricos. La rotación o movimiento del ganado va siguiendo un plan integral de pastoreo; y durante la noche los animales se resguardan en recintos temporales o permanentes.

En estos sistemas, el ganado tiene un breve pero intenso impacto en la tierra. Las pezuñas de los animales ayudan a romper la costra del suelo, permitiendo que el agua y el oxígeno penetren, y crean una superficie de contacto entre las semillas y la humedad del suelo, facilitando la germinación y aumentando la cobertura vegetal.

cow-759018_1920

El estiércol y la orina del ganado ayudan a regenerar la fertilidad del suelo. Los pastos pisoteados ayudan a cubrir el suelo y este se vuelve menos propenso a los efectos desecantes del sol y el viento. Como resultado, la evaporación de agua en la superficie del suelo disminuye considerablemente, la precipitación disponible se aprovecha de forma más eficaz, aumenta la actividad fotosintética y esto a su vez incrementa la producción de biomasa, la captura de carbono y la productividad del terreno. A este tipo de perturbación periódica se le llama “efecto de manada” y es un patrón clave en el mantenimiento de la salud de los pastizales, sabanas y matorrales.

Por el contrario, la falta de esta perturbación periódica en las regiones con climas áridos, semi-áridos o subhúmedos produce un efecto negativo en la vitalidad del ecosistema conocido como sobre-descanso. La falta de impacto animal ocasiona que los pastos no entren en contacto con la humedad del suelo, deteniendo por completo el proceso de descomposición biológica y evitando que los nutrientes puedan ser reincorporados al sistema. Una vez que vuelven las lluvias, los pequeños brotes verdes tienen dificultad para llevar a cabo la fotosíntesis debido a que la materia orgánica seca bloquea el acceso de la luz solar.

La planta va perdiendo vigor y cuando sus reservas de energía se agotán, muere. Debido a la falta de cobertura vegetal, el suelo se ve expuesto a los efectos desecantes del sol y del viento aumentando la evaporación, el impacto directo de la lluvia crea una costra que impide la infiltración del agua y la germinación de nuevas semillas, esto a su vez incrementa la escorrentía y la erosión. Este patrón inicia o, en el peor de los casos, acelera el proceso de desertificación.

En el lado opuesto tenemos el sobrepastoreo, una de las principales causas de la desertificación y la degradación de suelos en México y a nivel mundial. El sobrepastoreo es causado por la presencia prolongada o muy frecuente del ganado dentro de un área. El pisoteo constante y prolongado de los animales compacta la superficie del suelo, reduciendo la infiltración del agua. Las especies de pasto preferidas por el ganado no tienen suficiente tiempo de recuperación, la falta de hojas y superficie fotosintética provoca una perdida de vitalidad y eventualmente la planta muere. Los animales van entonces en busca de otras plantas y continúa el mismo patrón hasta que quedan únicamente las especies con poca o nula palatabilidad, entrando de nuevo al proceso de desertificación.

sheep-1766722_1280

Al aplicar el Pastoreo Holístico Planificado se evita el riesgo de sobrepastorear los terrenos debido a la corta permanencia de los animales en una área específica. La clave está en el tiempo de exposición, no en el número de animales. La observación detallada y continua del estado de la vegetación, suelos y animales es una actividad clave en el proceso holístico de toma de decisiones.

El movimiento continuo de los animales se planea de manera que las plantas siempre tengan suficiente tiempo para recuperarse por completo. Una de las características más importantes del Pastoreo Holístico Planificado es el reconocimiento de la importancia de este patrón de perturbación periódica en el mantenimiento de la salud del ecosistema.

 

El ganado se utiliza para imitar el papel que jugaban las grandes manadas de herbívoros silvestres que antes habitaban los pastizales y matorrales de nuestro país. Estas manadas seguían complejos patrones migratorios y se encontraban en constante movimiento para evitar a los depredadores y buscar pasturas frescas. Está danza evolutiva entre herbívoros, depredadores y pastizales dieron pie, a través de miles de años, a muchos de los suelos fértiles que hoy en día hemos sobre explotado a través de sistemas de agricultura industrial basados en monocultivos y el pastoreo intensivo.

soil-hand-1170

Los beneficios que desencadena la restauración de pastizales mediante el Manejo Holístico son muchos, tanto para el campesino como para el ecosistema.

Al mejorar la salud del ecosistema aumenta la rentabilidad del terreno, reduciendo la necesidad de insumos externos y bajando los costos de producción. Para los productores esto representa una mejora en su calidad de vida y la de sus familias: mejores ingresos, un ambiente sano, alimento saludable con alto valor nutricional y la satisfacción personal de ser parte de un movimiento mundial que está regenerando las tierras y revirtiendo la desertificación.

Plant_a_Sapling_for_Better_Future

Los pastizales y los matorrales saludables proporcionan múltiples servicios ecosistémicos. Uno de los servicios más importantes es el potencial de estos ecosistemas para funcionar como sumideros terrestres de carbono atmosférico. A través de la fotosíntesis de las plantas, parte del exceso de carbono que actualmente se encuentra en la atmósfera puede ser capturado en la biomasa de las plantas y en la materia orgánica del suelo.

La gran extensión de tierras aptas para aplicar sistemas de pastoreo regenerativo hace de estos sistemas una potencial solución a nivel mundial para la mitigación del cambio climático. Esté potencial es aún mayor si se integran metodologías como el Keyline o Línea Clave para el diseño hidrológico a nivel paisaje, y sistemas de cultivos perennes con árboles o arbustos adaptados a los climas locales dentro de sistemas silvopastoriles.

LEER MÁS ARTÍCULOS EN ESPAÑOL AQUÍ

3 Big Myths About Modern Agriculture

/by

Author: David R. Montgomery  | Published on: April 5, 2017

The following essay is reprinted with permission from The Conversation, an online publication covering the latest research.The Conversation

One of the biggest modern myths about agriculture is that organic farming is inherently sustainable. It can be, but it isn’t necessarily. After all, soil erosion from chemical-free tilled fields undermined the Roman Empire and other ancient societies around the world. Other agricultural myths hinder recognizing the potential to restore degraded soils to feed the world using fewer agrochemicals.

When I embarked on a six-month trip to visit farms around the world to research my forthcoming book, “Growing a Revolution: Bringing Our Soil Back to Life,” the innovative farmers I met showed me that regenerative farming practices can restore the world’s agricultural soils. In both the developed and developing worlds, these farmers rapidly rebuilt the fertility of their degraded soil, which then allowed them to maintain high yields using far less fertilizer and fewer pesticides.

Their experiences, and the results that I saw on their farms in North and South Dakota, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Ghana and Costa Rica, offer compelling evidence that the key to sustaining highly productive agriculture lies in rebuilding healthy, fertile soil. This journey also led me to question three pillars of conventional wisdom about today’s industrialized agrochemical agriculture: that it feeds the world, is a more efficient way to produce food and will be necessary to feed the future.

KEEP READING ON SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN

Farmers Can Profit Economically and Politically by Addressing Climate Change

/by

Author: Matthew Russell | Date Published: April 4, 2017 

President Trump, congressional Republicans and most American farmers share common positions on climate change: They question the science showing human activity is altering the global climate and are skeptical of using public policy to reduce greenhouse gas pollution.

But farmers are in a unique position to tackle climate change. We have the political power, economic incentive and policy tools to do so. What we don’t yet have is the political will.

As a fifth-generation Iowa farmer and the resilient agriculture coordinator at the Drake University Agricultural Law Center, I deal with both the challenges and opportunities of climate change. I also see a need for the agriculture community to make tough choices about its policy priorities in the face of dramatic political shifts in Washington.

Pundits, agriculture groups and President Trump have identified farmers as a key demographic in the Republican victory. How we leverage this influence remains to be seen. Trade and immigration policy and the president’s fiscal 2018 budget proposal are already creating disagreements between farmers and the Trump administration. We will need to be strategic in using our political power to shape agriculture policy.

My research and farming experience convince me that even in today’s unpromising political conditions, agriculture can play an important role in addressing climate change. American farmers can become global leaders in producing what the world needs as much as abundant food: a stable climate.

Farmers wrestle with climate change

Prior to 2009, thousands of farmers across the United States participated in two large-scale projects designed to maintain or increase carbon storage on farmlands: the National Farmers Union Carbon Credit Program and the Iowa Farm Bureau AgraGate program. These programs paid farmers for limiting the number of acres they tilled and for maintaining or establishing grasslands. Payments came through the Chicago Climate Exchange (CCX), a voluntary market in which businesses could buy and sell carbon credits.

But after Barack Obama became president in 2009, farmers overwhelmingly joined the opposition to climate change action. As agriculture journalist Chris Clayton documents in his 2015 book “The Elephant in the Cornfield,” farmers viewed Obama’s climate strategy – especially the push for cap-and-trade legislation in 2009-2010 – as regulatory overreach by a Democratic Congress and president.

For example, after the Environmental Protection Agency briefly mentioned livestock in a 2008 report on regulating greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act, farmers and agriculture trade groups erupted in outrage at the prospect of a “cow tax” on methane releases from both ends of the animal. When Congress failed to enact the cap-and-trade bill in 2010, the CCX went out of business.

KEEP READING ON THE CONVERSATION 

No-till at Woven Roots Farm: An Interview With Co-owner Jen Salinetti

/by

Author: Julie Rawson| Published: April 2017 

Jen Salinetti farms with her husband Pete in Tyringham, MA in the Berkshires. They have been farming for 16 years together, the four years spent on their almost 5-acre farm. In recent years they have not been using tillage to grow their vegetables. Jen feels that by not disturbing the soil they have a considerable positive impact on carbon sequestration on their land. They have experienced a significant increase in quality and yields which has enabled them to create a viable business on a small amount of land.

“Pete and I started experimenting with no-till 13 years ago, and we are now going into year 11. Our initial experimenting began when we were looking to increase greenhouse production. We started looking into ways to do prep without the tiller. We saw some really great results after the first season. And then we expanded it out to our market garden. Through the process, we were able to set up permanent beds and maximize our earnings and outputs through proper spacing of plants. It was right around when our son Diego was born. We wanted to commit to farming, to be available for family life and to be home.”

They read of French bio-intensive methods in books. Pete took off with that and Jen has supported him on some level. In the early 2000s they took an intensive with Eliot Coleman at a NOFA Summer Conference. Jen remembers being in that workshop and Pete looking at her and giving her an “I told you so” look. Jen thought this system was nice for a backyard gardener, but was unsure of the scalability for market growing for profit.

Some authors whose works were important in their conversion to no-till and soil buiding were Lee Reich, author of The Weed Free Gardener, and Grace Gershuny’s The Soul of Soil. Jerry Brunetti’s book Farm as Ecosystemwas also valuable. Now they feel that they are living proof that no till can be accomplished on scale. Jen remembered Eliot’s class giving her a whir of emotions. “There is someone who is doing this, has success, hard numbers, and success further north than us. It came at a critical time. We were having our second child. We were committing to being home and to being a family unit and to being in a position to provide high quality food to our community,” said Jen.

Every year they make some adjustments to their system. They push their season extension, have more constant soil coverage and provide more mulching. They find it fun to have this foundation and be able to build off of it, grow their business and teach others about their findings.

Jen states: “I would actually encourage somebody to not do it all at once. I think for two reasons – it could be incredibly overwhelming and a huge risk. I can say with complete confidence that we have better yield and quality, but it would have been too much of a risk all at once. Transitioning over a couple of years helped us to be able to see that one field over there was doing better than the other – carrots, for example were not growing as well over there as here. The longer transition helped to solidify it in front of our eyes and in our mouths. Within the first year we were able to bear witness to the overall positive changes we were making. By the end of year two, it was a significant shift for us.”

Though it was hard for Jen to embrace no-till farming at first, she did have some amazing mentors – she interned with Deb Habib and Ricky Baruc of Seeds of Solidarity Farm. She was their first intern. She saw that they were a number of years ahead of them and having success with what they were doing. After she left college and apprenticed on a farm that was not operating in that way, she was able to see on so many different levels that no-till made sense. Nonetheless, it was harder for her to take any really big steps. Pete is always willing to push the envelope further than she is through new applications and trials. “We had a few books on hand and some good inspiration. The Soul of Soil was a huge one for us. It gave us a clear perspective of our soil as a living environment. Having a better understanding of soil building was the foundation of that book. It helped us to see how comprehensive the system could be. I could see that we were not growing plants anymore. More so, we are here to support an ecosystem.”

Jen suggests that folks start by defining the bed spaces within their garden with permanent walking spaces and beds. Commit to having the bed spaces as weed free as possible. Their beds are very systematic – 30” wide with 12” pathways and beds 50’ long. With that system, they can set up their quick hoops easily and always use the same materials. It also makes it easier to calculate yields when there is uniformity.

Organic matter is a really important component. Having a good source of compost and being generous with it is essential for them. When they first started, they just put the compost in the planting hole. Now they do the whole bed. It is a hard thing to swallow at first, but the layering of compost mimics what the earth naturally does on its own. Observing what surrounds them and putting it into practice in the field continues to help their production thrive.

KEEP READING ON NOFAMASS

A Crucial Climate Mystery Hides Just Beneath Your Feet

/by

Author: Nathanael Johnson | Published: April 4, 2017

What Jonathan Sanderman really wanted was some old dirt. He called everyone he could think of who might know where he could get some. He emailed colleagues and read through old studies looking for clues, but he kept coming up empty.

Sanderman was looking for old dirt because it would let him test a plan to save the world. Soil scientists had been talking about this idea for decades: Farmers could turn their fields into giant greenhouse gas sponges, potentially offsetting as much as 15 percent of global fossil fuel emissions a year, simply by coaxing crops to suck more CO2 out of the air.

There was one big problem with this idea: It could backfire. When plants absorb CO2 they either turn it into food or stash it in the ground. The risk is that if you treat farms as carbon banks, it could lead to smaller harvests, which would spur farmers to plow more land and pump more carbon into the air than before.

Back in 2011, when Sanderman was working as a soil scientist in Australia (he’s now at Woods Hole Research Center in Massachusetts), he’d figured out a way to test if it was possible to produce bumper crops on a piece of land while also banking carbon in it. But first, he needed to get his hands on that really old dirt.

Specifically, he needed to find a farm that kept decades of soil samples and precise records of its yields. That way he could compare the amount of carbon in the soil with the harvest and see if storing carbon kneecapped production.

Sanderman’s office was in the southern city of Adelaide, directly across the street from the Waite Agricultural Research Institute. The researchers there supposedly had the soil and records that Sanderman needed, dating back to 1925. But no one had any idea where to find the dirt. After numerous dead ends, a chain of clues led Sanderman into the basement of a big research building down the road, covered in greenhouses.

The basement was a big, dimly lit room full of floor-to-ceiling shelves crammed with boxes in various stages of disarray. He walked the rows slowly, scanning up and down until they were in front of his nose: scores of gallon jars made of thick, leaded glass with yellowing labels. “Like something you’d find in a second-hand store and put on your shelf,” Sanderman says.

He felt a rush of excitement. Then he squinted at the labels. There were no dates or locations. Instead, each bore a single series of numbers. It was a code, and Sanderman had no clue how to crack it.

The question that Sanderman wanted to answer was laid out by the Canadian soil scientist Henry Janzen. In 2006, Janzen published a paper, “The soil carbon dilemma: Shall we hoard it or use it?” Janzen pointed out that since the dawn of agriculture, farmers have been breeding crops that suck carbon out of the air and put it on our plates, rather than leaving it behind in the soil.

“Grain is 45 percent carbon by weight,” Janzen told me. “So when you truck away a load of grain, you are exporting carbon which, in a natural system, would have mostly returned to the soil.”

Janzen has the rare ability to explain complicated things with such clarity that, when talking to him, you may catch yourself struck with wonder at an utterly new glimpse of how the world works. Plants, he explained, perform a kind of alchemy. They combine air, water, and the sun’s fire to make food. And this alchemical combination that we call food is, in fact, a battery—a molecular trap for the sun’s energy made of broken-down CO2 and H2O (you know, air and water).

Sugars are the simplest batteries. And sugars are also the building blocks for fat and fiber, which are just bigger, more complicated batteries. Ferns, trees, and reeds are the sum of those parts. Bury these batteries for thousands of years under conditions of immense heat and pressure, and they transform again—still carrying the sun’s energy—into coal, oil, and gas.

KEEP READING ON WIRED

New Technologies Offer Hope in Creating a More Transparent and Sustainable Food System

/by

Author: Dr. Mercola | Published: April 2017 

Modern-day food practices are reliant on a series of unsustainable methods — including fossil fuels and chemical-dependent genetically engineered (GE) organisms — that pollute Earth’s valuable resources such as our air, soil and water, as well as damage public health.

Our current food system, heavily treated with crop chemicals, is linked to myriad health problems including food allergies, gluten intolerance, gut and neurological dysfunction, immunodeficiency disorders and more.

Making healthy food choices is incredibly important, but can be a daunting task due to the extreme disconnect many of us have with the food we eat, as illustrated in the featured documentary “Digital Food.”

‘Food has Become a Black Box’

Food journalist Michael Pollan, who’s authored many books and articles explaining how nature and culture intersect on our plates and in our farms and gardens,1 says not knowing where our food comes from creates a vicious cycle of unhealthy choices that results in sickness and disease not only for humans, but our planet too.

“Food has become a black box,” says Pollan. “When you’re buying a pound of hamburger, you know very little. You don’t even know what kind of animal it is.”

Most of the time, consumers have little to no details about the food they eat, including how the animal lived, where it came from, what it ate or how long ago it was slaughtered, says Pollan, who through his many thought-provoking books has educated millions about the downfalls of our current food system.

“It’s always been my conviction that the more people know about how their food is produced, the better choices they will make,” says Pollan.

“That can be very disruptive to the food industry,” he adds while being interviewed in the featured film, which explores the potential new technologies have in bringing transparency to our food system.

Two Children in Every US Classroom Have Food Allergies

About 90 percent of the money Americans spend on food goes to buy processed food. What’s worse, new research shows that, astonishingly, more than half — nearly 60 percent, in fact — of the food Americans eat is ULTRA-processed meaning the food could be purchased at a gas station.

The implications of this, in terms of public health, stretch far and wide. Researchers estimate that about 15 million Americans now have food allergies.2

This condition, which can be deadly, affects 1 in every 13 children in the U.S. or two in every classroom, resulting in an economic burden of roughly $25 billion per year, according to Food Allergy Research & Education.3

Food allergies among children increased about 50 percent between 1997 and 2011, according to a 2013 study by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.4

This steep increase in food-related illness has caused consumers to lose faith in the food system and, as a result, to grow very fearful, says Julian Baggini, author of “The Virtues of the Table: How to Eat and Think.”

“They’re worried about being poisoned and about their health,” says Baggini in the film, adding that there’s this interesting tension between the desire for cheap and plentiful food and at the same time, also a desire for clean, healthy food that’s produced sustainably.

Silicon Valley Sets Its Eyes on Food Technology

In an attempt to help consumers regain their trust in food, companies such as San Francisco-based Nima Labs, featured in the documentary, are working to develop new technologies that allow consumers to avoid foods or key ingredients such as gluten that may trigger an allergic reaction.

Shireen Yates and Scott Sundvor, both of whom suffered food allergies and sensitivities for years, founded Nima Labs in 2013. Tired of wondering whether a food was safe to eat, Yates and Sundvor created a portable device that allows consumers to test liquid and solid foods for gluten in about two minutes.5

The Nima Starter Kit, costing around $300, allows users to insert a tiny sample of food into a capsule that uses chemical measurements to determine if there is 20 parts per million (ppm) or more of gluten in your food sample.

“The sensor combines an electronic sensor with antibody-based detection in a disposable capsule. This process turns a complicated eight-step laboratory food testing process into an easy three steps,” according to the company’s website.6

“Nima also syncs to an app that will record test results and restaurant reviews for future reference and community sharing.”

Please note that this is merely a review of technology featured in the documentary, and I have not investigated its validity.

The device is one of many new technologies aimed at empowering consumers to make healthier and more confident food choices. Other emerging technologies include devices that measure anything from calories to pesticides to antibiotics, notes the film.

The Preference for Health Food Isn’t Just a Trend; It’s a Lifestyle

More than ever before, consumers have a heightened awareness regarding the food they eat, as well as an increased preference for organics and grass fed beef and dairy.

In the U.S., the organic sector grew 11.5 percent in 2016, while grass fed increased about 50 percent. As a result, for the first time in nearly 20 years, the amount of GE crops grown around the world has decreased in terms of acreage.

This preference for health food isn’t just a trend; it’s a lifestyle — and for good reason.  Studies suggest that organic fruits and vegetables may contain as much as 18 percent to 69 percent more antioxidants than pesticide-treated produce.

As antioxidants play a critical role in the prevention of diseases and illnesses, these higher levels of nutrients, in combination with a lower toxicity level, make organically grown foods a superior choice.

One of the strongest selling points for eating organic foods had been to reduce your exposure to pesticides and insecticides. Now, a recent study demonstrates that organic foods hold more benefits for your future health and the health of your children.

The study conducted by the European Parliamentary Research Service reviewed existing research and made several determinations.7

KEEP READING ON MERCOLA.COM

Cultivo en Pasto: Una solución de Agricultura Regenerativa

/by

Autor:Vero Reynoso |  Publicado: 9  diciembre 2016

Desde finales de la década de los 90, Colin Seis, un agricultor australiano, se ha dedicado a sembrar cereales en pastizales durante la época de lactancia de sus ovejas. Para sembrar el cereal, utiliza un taladro o perforadora, así evita el arado tradicional para sembrar. Esta técnica la llamó “Cultivo en pasto”. Así que obtiene dos cultivos en un mismo terreno, cosecha de cereales para alimento o forraje y carne o lana de borrego del pasto. Por lo que este sistema tiene un gran potencial para alimentar al mundo de manera sustentable.

La idea de cultivo en pasto, llegó de una manera peculiar a Colin. En 1993, Colin y su amigo Daryl Cluff, bebían cerveza y se preguntaron porqué los cultivos y pastizales se cultivaban por separado. Su respuesta: la tradición. Ya que se les había enseñado que los pastizales y cultivos se operan con procesos ecológicos diferentes e incompatibles. Ambos sistemas son necesarios y pueden alternarse a lo largo del tiempo, pero nunca se integraron. ¿Es cierto? ¿Incorrecto? Decidieron continuar bebiendo y discutiendo el tema.

Colin se planteó la pregunta porque observaba las hierbas nativas de su granja y comenzó a preguntarse si la naturaleza no tenía la intención de que las plantas anuales y perenes coexistieran. Evidentemente, la naturaleza quería maleza en su pasto, así que ¿por qué no un tipo diferente de plantas anuales en el pasto, como la avena? Sabía porqué a los cereales les gustaba correr carreras de 100 metros mientras que a los pastizales y algunas hierbas les gusta más correr un maratón. Estas son dos especies diferentes, dos tipos diferentes de atletas. ¿Es cierto? ¿Incorrecto? Continuaron con la discusión.

LEER MÁS AQUÍ
LEER MÁS ARTÍCULOS ES ESPAÑOL AQUÍ

Monsanto Tribunal Judges Release Opinion: Monsanto Activities Violate Basic Human Rights

/by

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

April 18, 2017

Contact : US : Katherine Paul, Organic Consumers Association/Regeneration International, 207-653-3090, katherine@organicconsumers.org; Netherlands : Tjerk Dalhuisen, +31614699126, tjerk@monsanto-tribunal.org

Monsanto Tribunal Judges Release Opinion: Monsanto Activities Violate Basic Human Rights

Better Regulations Needed to Protect Victims of Multinational Corporations

THE HAGUE, Netherlands –

Today the five international judges for the Monsanto Tribunal presented their legal opinion, which include key conclusions, both on the conduct of Monsanto and on the need for important changes to international laws governing multinational corporations.

The judges conclude that Monsanto has engaged in practices that have impinged on the basic human right to a healthy environment, the right to food and the right to health. Additionally, Monsanto’s conduct has a negative impact on the right of scientists to freely conduct indispensable research.

The judges also conclude that despite the development of regulations intended to protect the environment, a gap remains between commitments and the reality of environmental protection. International law should now precisely and clearly assert the protection of the environment and establish the crime of ecocide. The Tribunal concludes that if ecocide were formally recognized as a crime in international criminal law, the activities of Monsanto could possibly constitute a crime of ecocide.

In the third part of the advisory opinion, the Tribunal focuses on the widening gap between international human rights law and corporate accountability. It calls for the need to assert the primacy of international human and environmental rights law. A set of legal rules is in place to protect investors’ rights in the frame of the World Trade Organization and in bilateral investment treaties and in clauses in free-trade agreements. These provisions tend to undermine the capacity of nations to maintain policies, laws and practices protecting human and environmental rights. United Nations bodies urgently need to take action; otherwise key questions of human and environmental rights violations will be resolved by private tribunals operating entirely outside the United Nations framework.

The Tribunal also urges to hold non-state actors responsible within international human rights law. The Tribunal reiterates that multinational enterprises should be recognized as responsible actors and should be subjected to the International Criminal Court jurisdiction in case of infringement of fundamental rights. The Tribunal clearly identifies and denounces a severe disparity between the rights of multinational corporations and their obligations. Therefore, the advisory opinion encourages authoritative bodies to protect the effectiveness of international human rights and environmental law against the conduct of multinational corporations.

The very clear conclusions will be of interest to both the critics of Monsanto and industrial agriculture and to the shareholders of chemical companies and especially Bayer. The reputation of Monsanto—and Bayer in case of a merger—will not exactly improve with these conclusions by the judges of the Tribunal. The advisory opinion is a strong signal to those involved in international law, but also to the victims of toxic chemicals. The Tribunal has created links and shared important information between lawyers and organisations that represent the victims. Therefore it is likely that the conclusions will lead to more liability cases against Monsanto and similar companies. This will shine a light on the true cost of production and will affect Monsanto (Bayer) shareholder value in the long run. Companies that cause damage to health, food and healthy environment should and will be held accountable for their actions.

Organizing groups behind the Monsanto Tribunal include the Organic Consumers Association, Navdanya, IFOAM Organics International, the Biovision Foundation and Regeneration International.

Monsanto Tribunal Judges Opinion (summary plus full document) www.monsanto-tribunal.org/conclusions

Regeneration International, a project of the Organic Consumers Association, is building a global network of farmers, scientists, businesses, activists, educators, journalists, governments and consumers who will promote and put into practice regenerative agriculture and land-use practices that: provide abundant, nutritious food; revive local economies; rebuild soil fertility and biodiversity; and restore climate stability by returning carbon to the soil, through the natural process of photosynthesis. Visit www.organicconsumers.org and regenerationinternational.org

The Monsanto Tribunal is an international civil society initiative to hold Monsanto accountable for human rights violations, for crimes against humanity, and for ecocide. Eminent judges heard testimonies from victims, and will deliver a legal opinion following procedures of the International Court of Justice. A distinct and parallel event, the People’s Assembly, was a gathering of social movements from all over the world that exchanged ideas and planned for the future we want. The Tribunal and People’s Assembly took place between 14 and 16 October 2016 in The Hague, Netherlands. The legal opinion will be delivered on April 18th 2017 and livestreamed on this page. Visit www.monsanto-tribunal.org

Cows Want to Be Outside As Much As They Want Food

/by

Author: Douglas Main | Published on: April 6, 2017

How ardently do cows desire going out to pasture? Quite a lot, it seems. A new study shows that the animals are as motivated to get their feet into clover as they are to eat.

As detailed in a paper in the journal Scientific Reports, researchers came up with a scheme to measure how driven cows were to either access food, or go out to pasture. The team, led by Marina von Keyserlingk and Daniel Weary at the University of British Columbia, steadily increased the amount of force it took for a cow to open a door, which led to either food or pasture.

The scientists found that the majority of the 22 cows they studied pushed equally hard to get to food or to access the outdoor areas. They noted that the cows at the British Columbia research farm, were much more interested in going outside at night, compared to the day. Once outside, many of them laid on the ground to sleep. (Von Keyserlingk says it may be uncomfortably hot during the day—the study was conducted in the summer—and that the cows prefer to stay inside where it is cooler in the daytime.)

KEEP READING ON NEWSWEEK