Avaaz – Monsanto vs. Mother Earth

4764_tomatoTakeover_1_460x230

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Monsanto vs. Mother Earth

 

To the governments of Germany, France and the Netherlands and all contracting states of the European Patent Convention:

As concerned citizens, we urge you to take the lead to fix European patent law by calling on the Administrative Council of the European Patent Organisation to close the loopholes that allow corporations to patent plant varieties and conventional breeding methods. Clear and effective safeguards and prohibitions are needed to protect consumers, farmers and breeders from the corporate takeover of our food chain.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

http://www.avaaz.org/en/monsanto_vs_mother_earth_twa/?rt

Plastic-Free Doesn’t Mean BPA-Free

Courtesy by: Care 2. Kristina Chew

Unknown-1Using a BPA-free water bottle? Going out of your way to avoid soaps, shampoos, cosmetics and other products with phthlates and to eat locally-grown, organic produce? All this may still not be enough to reduce your exposure to these endrocrine-disrupting chemicals, according to a recent study. Scientists from the University of Washington School of Public Health have found that we can still be exposed to these substances via our diet, organic or not, and even if we use non-plastic containers to store food.

BPA or bisphenol A and phthalates are synthetic chemicals that have been found to adversely affect the endocrine systems. In particular, prenatal exposure to phthalates has been linked to abnormalities in the male reproductive system. In girls, fetal exposure to BPA has been connected to hyperactivity, anxiety and depression.

Researchers under Sheela Sathyanarayana studied ten families. Five were given specific instructions on reducing phthalate and BPA exposure. The other five received a specially catered diet for five days, with all the food consisting of local, fresh, organic ingredients that was not prepared, cooked or stored in plastic containers. The researchers predicted that the latter group would, after testing, have lower urinary concentrations of phthalates and BPA.

Instead, the researchers discovered the opposite, that the five families (and the children in partucular) who’d eaten the special diet had 100-fold higher phthalate concentrations than the levels found in the general population (based on data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention).

Further testing of the locally sourced and organic ingredients used in preparing the meals for the five families revealed the possible culprits. High rates of phthalates were detected in the food and especially in butter, milk, cheese and spices such as ground cinnamon and cayenne pepper.

Based on all this, the researchers estimated that an average child of three to six years old has been exposed to 183 milligrams per kilogram of their body weight per day, far in excess of the 20 mg/kg/day limit recommended by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

Clearly, as Sathyanarayana comments, the study shows how

“…very little control [we have] over what’s in our food, including contaminants. Families can focus on buying fresh fruits and vegetables, foods that are not canned and are low in fat, but it may take new federal regulations to reduce exposures to these chemicals.”

Even when (as many of us do) we seek to control our exposure to chemicals, we’re far less in control than we’d like — meaning that, it’s even more necessary to push for policies to protect our food supply. As the researchers make very clear, “food contamination can be a major source of DEHP [phthalate] exposure.”

Sathyanarayana’s and her colleagues’s study is another reminder to keep food safety at the top of the agenda, and be wary of salads that could be killing you, genetically engineered foods and foods imported from other countries where regulations are even more lacking.

Cancer risk higher among people who eat more processed meat, study finds

Courtesy by: Danis Campbell. The Guardian

Unknown-1Biggest consumers of food such as ham, bacon and sausages are 44% more likely to die prematurely, according to research

Those who ate high levels of meat such as bacon had a 72% higher risk of death from heart disease and 11% higher risk of death from cancer.
People who eat a lot of processed meat such as ham, bacon, sausages and burgers run a greater risk of premature death and developing conditions such as cancer and heart disease, research shows.

The study, which included data from 448,568 people in 10 European countries, including the UK, found that the biggest consumers of processed meat were 44% more likely to die prematurely from any cause than those who ate little of it. High levels of consumption increased the risk of death from heart disease by 72% and cancer by 11%.

If everyone ate no more than 20g a day of processed meat – about one rasher of bacon, chipolata sausage or thin slice of ham – then 3% of all premature deaths could be avoided, according to an estimate by the authors, led by Professor Sabine Rohrmann from the University of Zurich. Their results are published in the journal BMC Medicine.

But a small amount of red meat also seems to benefit health, because it contains important nutrients and minerals, they add. Risks rise in line with the level of consumption, the researchers found. The results are in line with previous studies. Dr Rachel Thompson, deputy head of science at the World Cancer Research Fund, said the research bore out its own findings in 2007 – disputed by the meat industry at the time – about the health risks of processed meat.

It has found that consuming bacon, ham, hot dogs, salami and some sausages heightened the risk of bowel cancer. The charity estimates that 4,100 fewer Britons a year would be diagnosed with the disease if everyone ate no more than 10g of processed meat a day, though advises avoiding it altogether.

Dr Carrie Ruxton, a nutritionist who sits on the meat industry-funded Meat Advisory Panel, said the study’s findings were not robust enough to justify changing public health advice. The fact those who consumed the largest amounts of processed meat also displayed other unhealthy habits meant it was hard to confidently ascribe risk of death to meat eating alone, she said.

“The occasional bacon butty isn’t going to do you much harm. People shouldn’t avoid bacon or salami because they think it’s going to kill them, because it won’t. We can’t say that from this study. But we do know that processed meat has a higher salt and fat content, so having bacon or salami in moderation, and switching to lean red meat products, is a good idea,” Ruxton added. Tracy Parker, a heart health dietitian with the British Heart Foundation, said people who ate a lot of processed meat should try to eat a more varied diet, such as chicken, fish, beans or lentils.

Extremely Loud

Courtesy by: Maureen Nandini Mitra. Earth Island Journal

Unknown-2When I last visited Kolkata, India, after a long period of living in the relatively quiet hills of Berkeley, CA, my ears were assaulted by the cacophony of traffic noise from the street outside my parents’ apartment. The daily discordant orchestra of blaring horns, squealing brakes, shouting vendors, and loudspeakers blasting religious songs would start in the wee hours of the morning and go late into the night. It felt like torture: I couldn’t sleep, I couldn’t concentrate on what I was reading, I couldn’t hold a conversation without raising my voice. The din of my increasingly congested birth city seemed to have risen in volume over the years.

This rising din isn’t just a problem in jam-packed India. Across the world – as our numbers swell, as nations get more urbanized, and societies become more technology-dependent – we humans are getting noisier. “Among environmental factors in Europe, environmental noise leads to a disease burden that is second in magnitude only to that from air pollution,” says a 2011 World Health Organization report. In the United States, noise is now the number one neighborhood complaint, beating out crime and traffic, according to the American Housing Survey conducted by the US Census. There have been incidents of noise conflicts leading to violence and even murder.

So loud and persistent are the sounds we create as we go about the business of living that researchers say there is scarcely any place left on land or water that is free of man-made noise. We have changed what our planet sounds like. Yet there seems to be little understanding of just how seriously noise is threatening our natural world – and us. “It’s like this unrecognized growing tsunami of potential impacts; we are growing louder and louder and no one is noticing,” says Dr. Mike Webster, director of Cornell University’s Macaulay Library, the world’s oldest archive of biodiversity audio and video recordings.

There are reams of research showing that noise – commonly defined as unwanted or unpleasant sound – is not merely an annoyance. Like other forms of pollution, it has wide-ranging adverse health, social, and environmental effects.

In humans, noise pollution damages hearing, disturbs communication, disrupts sleep, affects heart function, intrudes on cognition in children, reduces productivity, provokes unwanted behaviors, and increases accidents. “To say noise simply annoys people is to underestimate the effect it has on our mental and physical well-being,” says Manhattan-based psychologist and noise expert Dr. Arline Bronzaft, whose 1970s research on the effects of noise on children’s learning is considered a landmark in the field. Bronzaft points out that noise pollution has as much to do with persistent low frequency sounds and vibrations – such as those emitted by wind turbines, ventilation systems, or electronic devices – as loud and jarring sounds.

The effect of manmade noise is far more profound on the fragile and complex sound systems of the natural world. Oceans, forests, grasslands, and deserts all have their own internal harmonies. Their unique soundscapes carry important messages for marine and terrestrial animals. When humans interrupt those harmonies, birds and animals can suffer.

“In a natural environment, animal voices are created in such a way that each group of critters can hear each other,” says musician and naturalist Bernie Krause, who has spent four decades recording sounds of the biological world, which he calls “biophony.” Krause found that animals divide up the acoustic spectrum so that “birds, reptiles, amphibians, and mammals all find their own niches, their own bandwidths to vocalize in” so that when they issue mating calls or cry out warnings, their voices aren’t masked by the sounds being made by other animals. Human noise, which Krause calls “anthrophony,” disrupts this natural symphony. “The critters have to find new bandwidths they can vocalize in,” he says, “and when they do that it becomes very chaotic and has a great impact on them and causes great stress.”

Biologists have found that some birds in urban areas are finding it hard to hear each other and their young, which impairs chicks’ growth, as they are less likely to be fed, leading to a decline in their numbers. In forests and deserts and plains a range of animals from gleaning bats to frogs to the endangered pronghorns in Arizona’s Sonoran desert are abandoning their habitats in order to escape the noise of chainsaws and low-flying jets. The situation might be even worse under water. Ocean noise has been increasing by about three decibels every decade in the past 50 years due to sonar blasts by navies, shots from air guns used in deep-sea oil and gas exploration, and the thrum of cruise and freight ships. The cacophony disorients and sometimes leads to the death of marine animals, especially whales and dolphins, that rely on their acute and highly specialized hearing for communication, navigation, and detecting predators.

As even the most remote forests and the deepest depths of the oceans are invaded by humanity’s rumble, our world’s natural sound rhythms are going mute. Krause says: “A great silence is spreading over the natural world even as the sound of man is becoming deafening.”

Stay tuned for an in-depth audio report on noise pollution by the Journal and Making Contact at www.radioproject.org.

Ending Animal Testing for Cosmetics: Will India Be Next?

Courtesy by: Alicia Graef. Care 2.

UnknownAnimal advocates are celebrating a landmark decision handed down from the Drug Controller General of India (DCGI) to fast-track the removal of two final tests of cosmetic products on animals from India’s safety standard.

“The directive was issued during an emergency meeting of the Bureau of Indian Standards PCD19 Cosmetic Sectional Committee, to which HSI/India was a special invitee, and marks the beginning of the end of acute oral toxicity (lethal poisoning) and oral mucosal irritation animal testing for cosmetic purposes in India,”according to the Humane Society International.

From now on, companies who want to test their products or ingredients will have to submit a non-animal testing proposal to the DCGI for approval.

“It’s unthinkable that in this day and age, animals are still choking on cosmetic chemicals in decades-old poisoning tests while companies choke on their own inertia in switching to a cruelty-free business model,” said HSI India Be Cruelty-Free Campaign Manager Alokparna Sengupta.

In the absence of non-animal alternatives, validation by the regulator will be done on an individual basis. The regulator is currently examining the European Union’s ban, according to the Hindu Business Line.

After decades of campaigning, the EU is set to finalize its ban this month, and animal advocates are counting down the days. This historic victory for animals means that from March 11 onwards, anyone who wants to sell new cosmetics products and their raw ingredients in the EU may not test either on animals anywhere the world.

Israel also recently enacted a law banning animal testing for cosmetics, personal care and household products that went into effect on December 31.

Both of these moves send a strong message in support of cruelty-free products to the rest of the world and have peaked curiosity and support from a number of countries, including Korea, who will hopefully follow suit.

“Following the European marketing ban we are seeing doors open in all the major exporting countries as industry tackles the job of converting all their safety testing to modern non-animal methods. We are particularly pleased to see the active interest of Korean industry and we will do all we can to encourage progress,” said Cruelty Free International Director of Policy, Dr Nick Palmer.

To find cruelty-free products already available on the international market, visit gocrueltyfree.org.

via Ending Animal Testing for Cosmetics: Will India Be Next? | Care2 Causes.

Cool New Sponges Can Recycle CO2 Into Fuel

Courtesy by: Care 2. Beth Buczynski

UnknownWhen your ice tea overflows the cup, forming a puddle on the counter, how do you clean it up? A sponge of course. Now scientists are working to see if the same idea will work with all that excess carbon dioxide that’s swirling around in our atmosphere.

Researchers at Australia’s national science agency, CSIRO, are developing a smart material called a MOF (metal organic framework) that could make it possible to capture C02 without using further coal-based energy. Using only the power of sunlight, these ‘solar sponges’ could be a new way to recycle carbon emissions without creating more in the process.

Traditionally, carbon dioxide capture has been accomplished through the use of liquid absorbers to catch flue gases at a coal-fired power plant before they escape into the atmosphere. The gases must then be heated to release the CO2 which is then stored and can be re-used. While slightly better than letting pollutants fly free, this process can consume as a much as 30 percent of a power plant’s production capacity. Not exactly efficient, especially when talking about power from fossil fuels.

In comparison, the CSIRO team uses a process called dynamic photo-switching, which refers to the reversible light-induced switching of floor or intensity. Instead of using liquid absorbers, the team used MOFs to absorb as much as a liter of nitrogen gas in just one gram of material. The unique material only requires UV light to trigger the release of CO2 after it has been captured from the mixture of exhaust gases. When exposed to concentrated UV light the MOF sponge instantaneously releases up to 64 percent of absorbed CO2, which can then be recycled into usable fuel.

“The capture and release process can be compared to soaking up water with a sponge and then wringing it out. When UV light hits the material its structure bends and twists and stored gas is released,” said Dr Matthew Hill, who was awarded a 2012 Eureka Prize for his MOF research and led the CSIRO group conducting this research. ”This is an exciting development for carbon capture because concentrated solar energy can be used instead of further coal-based energy to driv

Israel Bans Animal-Tested Cosmetics. Why Can’t We Do the Same? | Care2 Causes

Courtesy by: Alicia Graef.Care 2

UnknownAnimal advocates, and animals in labs, were given yet another reason to celebrate the new year with the enactment of a law in Israel banning animal testing for cosmetics, personal care and household products that went into effect at midnight on December 31.

“Animal testing in the Cosmetics Industry inflicts horrific suffering on these animals. Each product requires between 2,000-3,000 tests, and animals die in agony,” said MK Eitan Cabel, who called the move a “true revolution in animal welfare.”

Animal testing for cosmetics and other products was banned in Israel in 2007, but this new ban is focused on products that are imported from other countries and will also mean an end to marketing products that have been tested on animals, even if the testing was done elsewhere in the world.

“The end of animal testing for cosmetics has come a step closer today,” said Troy Seidle, director of research & toxicology for Humane Society International (HSI). “Whilst we commend Israel for taking this truly historic action, strict enforcement of the law alongside active assistance from cosmetic companies, will now be vital. HSI’s Be Cruelty-Free campaign is working in India, Brazil, South Korea, the United States and beyond to achieve a world where no animal has to suffer and die for the sake of cosmetics. Once the EU enforces its own sales ban in March, the creation of these two cruelty-free markets will be a significant milestone towards achieving our goal.”

The EU adopted legislation to ban animal testing for cosmetics in 1993, which was supposed to go into effect in 1998, but was repeatedly delayed. In 2009, all animal testing for cosmetics was banned in the EU and supported by campaigns from organizations including HSI, the British Union for the Abolition of Vivisection and the European Coalition to End Animal Experiments.

The 2009 ban was also accompanied by a marketing ban for products that were tested outside of the EU. However, the deadline was delayed for three types of tests in an effort to buy time to develop alternatives. As of the March deadline, if it’s not delayed again, no cosmetic products with ingredients that have been tested on animals will be sold in the EU, whether or not there is an alternative test available.

For more information on the EU ban, visit No Cruel Cosmetics. To find truly cruelty-free products, visit gocrueltyfree.org.

 

Wildlife Trade Infographic : From Humane Society International

Get the Facts

Every year billions of animals are inhumanely captured and killed to provide for your entertainment, and to make products for you to buy here and around the world. It’s called the international wildlife trade, and you can help stop it by avoiding products and experiences that come from these abused animals. Use the map to learn more and sign the pledge below!

Sign the Don’t Buy Wild Pledge

Countless numbers of animals suffer every year as victims of the international wildlife trade. I pledge to avoid contributing to the illegal wildlife trade and animal suffering by not purchasing items made with or from wild animal parts, not purchasing live wild animals, and not patronizing facilities that keep wildlife captive under inhumane conditions.

After you take action, you’ll receive updates by email on how you can help animals. You can easily opt out at any time.

HSI works year-round to encourage policy-makers to improve and enforce laws and regulations in order to reduce the trade in wildlife.We send our team of experts to the triennial CITES meeting to fight for greater protection for wildlife around the world. And we conduct regular outreach to the public about how their consumption and travel choices impact wildlife. Learn more, and join us, athumanesocietyinternational.org.

Finally! EU Set to Ban Cosmetics Testing on Animals This Spring

Courtesy by: Alicia Graef. Care 2

UnknownAfter decades of delays, disappointment and campaigning by animal advocacy groups, the European Union is finally set to enact its ban on animal testing for cosmetics this spring.

Beginning on March 11, anyone selling cosmetic products in the EU will not be allowed to test finished products or their ingredients on animals anywhere in the world, whether or not an alternative to animal testing is available.

The EU adopted legislation to ban animal testing for cosmetics in 1993, which was supposed to go into effect in 1998, but was repeatedly delayed. In 2009, all animal testing for cosmetics was banned in the EU and supported by campaigns from organizations including HSI, the British Union for the Abolition of Vivisection and the European Coalition to End Animal Experiments (ECEAE).

However, thanks to industry lobbying, the deadline was delayed for a few types of tests in an effort to buy time to develop alternatives and the former European Commissioner in charge of the EU’s cosmetics regulations was considering recommendations to delay or weaken the ban yet again, while animal advocates continued to work to ensure the 2013 deadline would be met.

“I believe that the ban should enter into force in March 2013 as Parliament and Council have already decided. I am therefore not planning to propose a postponement or derogation to the ban. This decision also means that we need to step up our efforts in the development, validation and acceptance of alternative methods as well as in the international recognition of these methods,” wrote Tonio Borg, Commissioner for Health and Consumer Policy, in a letter to the ECEAE.

Despite the fact that reliable alternatives to animal testing are available, and the fact that hundreds of companies are successfully developing and selling vegan and truly cruelty-free products, millions of animals continue to to suffer and die an agonizing death behind closed doors at the hands of companies who refuse to give up the practice for nothing more than human vanity.

“This is truly an historic event and the culmination of over 20 years of campaigning. Now we will apply our determination and vision on a global stage to ensure that the rest of the world follows this lead,” said Michelle Thew, Chief Executive of Cruelty Free International.

Hopefully, the rest of the world will follow suit. Israel recently announced a ban on animal testing for cosmetics and household products and India announced that is considering a similar move.

To find animal-friendly products already on the market, visit gocrueltyfree.org.

via Finally! EU Set to Ban Cosmetics Testing on Animals This Spring | Care2 Causes.

HSI Commends Taiwan for Historic Ban on Trade in Marine Mammal Products

Courtes: Humane Society International/Canada

Canadian seal products are among those prohibited

  • It is time for the Canadian government to face facts and end its support of the fading sealing industry. Katie Carrus/The HSUS

MONTREAL—Humane Society International/Canada commends Taiwan for passing a landmark ban on trade in marine mammal products, including seal skins, but exempting products of traditional indigenous hunts. The Taiwanese Legislative Yuan passed the legislation with unanimous support following a multi-year campaign by Taiwanese animal protection group EAST in collaboration with HSI.

“The compassionate actions of the Taiwanese Legislative Yuan will save countless seals and other marine mammals from a horrible fate,” said Rebecca Aldworth, executive director of HSI Canada. “The momentum to end trade in marine mammal products is growing and the sealing industry’s days are numbered. Instead of providing more pointless subsidies to artificially prop up this shameful practice, Canada should prohibit the slaughter and invest in a transition program for sealers.”

“Citizens of Taiwan care deeply about animal welfare, and we do not want to trade in products of cruelty that the rest of the world has rejected,” said Wu Hung, executive director of EAST. “I am very proud of the leadership Taiwan has shown in banning trade in marine mammal products. I hope that many other nations will follow suit, and that the Canadian government will finally do as the majority of Canadians and people around the world want and end the seal hunt for good.”

“Between 2003 and 2009, Taiwan imported 430,000 kilograms of seal oil, which made us the 4th largest importer of seal oil in the world. Through our trade in seal products, consumers in Taiwan were unintentionally involved in the killing of thousands of innocent seals in Canada,” said Legislator Lin of the Legislative Yuan in Taiwan. “Taiwan’s decision is an important step forward for animal protection and conservation in Asia.” Canada’s commercial seal hunt is the largest slaughter of marine mammals on Earth. Because most Canadians oppose commercial sealing, the products of the seal slaughter are almost entirely exported. With the United States, European Union and Russia prohibiting trade in seal products, the Canadian sealing industry has sought to develop alternate markets in Asia, sparking protests in mainland China, Hong Kong, South Korea and Taiwan.

EAST launched their campaign to secure a Taiwanese ban on seal product trade in 2010, achieving massive public support for the move and convincing many retailers in Taiwan to voluntarily discontinue sales of seal products. The prohibition on trade in marine mammal products cements Taiwan’s position and ensures that its trade in marine mammal products will never resume.

Facts:

  • The United States, European Union, Russia, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Mexico—and now Taiwan–have prohibited trade in some or all seal products.
  • In January 2012, sealing industry representatives admitted that there are 400,000 seal skins in inventory on the global market.
  • In April 2012, when it appeared the annual seal slaughter would not go ahead due to lack of markets, the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador announced that it would provide $3.6 million in loans to Carino Processing Limited to stockpile skins to meet “future demand.”
  • At the industry’s height, sealing revenues amounted to about 3 percent of the landed value of Newfoundland’s fishing industry. In recent years, the landed value of the seal hunt has been in the region of $1 million annually, with only a few hundred fishermen participating in the slaughter.
  • 2010 polling revealed half of Newfoundland sealers with an opinion support a sealing industry buyout—a plan in which sealers would receive immediate compensation as the hunt is ended and funds would be invested in economic alternatives in the communities involved.

Media Contact: Dean Pogas, 514.395.2914, dpogas@humanesociety.org

Humane Society International/Canada is a leading force for animal protection, representing tens of thousands of members and constituents across the country. HSI/Canada has active programs in companion animals, wildlife and habitat protection, marine mammal preservation and farm animal welfare. HSI/Canada is proud to be a part of Humane Society International—one of the largest animal protection organizations in the world, with more than eleven million members and constituents globally—on the Web at hsicanada.ca.

EAST works to create a better quality of life by improving animal welfare and environmental protection through research, legislation and education campaigns along with social justice – on the Web at www.east.org.tw