728x90

The Monsanto Company is raking it in—last week they reported third quarter profits of $937 million. Yes, you read that right: Monsanto’s profit for the three-month period ending May 31 amounted tonearly a billion dollars, up a whopping 35% from the same quarter last year. That raging river of cash flowing in must make it easy for the company to finance a flurry of advertising and lobbying extolling the virtues its products. According to Monsanto’s PR, the company is feeding a growing population, protecting natural resources, and promoting biodiversity.

But the truth is decidedly less impressive, and now UCS is setting the record straight with an ad campaign of our own.

More Herbicide + Fewer Butterflies = Better Seeds?

UCS ads challenging Monsanto's hype in the Archives Metro station (near the U.S. EPA) in Washington, DC. The ads are also featured in stations near the U.S. Department of Agriculture and Capitol Hill.

With a series of three new ads you can see on our website, we’re taking on Monsanto’s claims directly. one of the company’s ads (coincidentally, the one that appeared across the street from UCS’s Washington, DC, office earlier in this year) says their “better seeds can help meet the needs of our rapidly growing population, while protecting the earth’s natural resources.” In response, our ad  points out that the company’s Roundup Ready crops have increased herbicide use by an estimated 383 million pounds and have been associated with an estimated 81 percent fewer monarch butterfly eggs in the Midwest—critical ground along the spectacular annual migration route of these butterflies to and from Mexico.

We’re also using our campaign to take issue with Monsanto’s suggestions that its genetic engineering technology is improving U.S. crop yields (nope, not much) and conserving water (not at all). Instead, as our ads and our analysis behind them show, the company’s products are spawning an epidemic of “superweeds” and crowding out more sustainable alternatives.

Fighting Fire with Facts

We have no illusions that Monsanto’s spin machine will let up anytime soon. After all, as Mother Jones’ Tom Philpott lays out, the company’s combination of glossy ads, high-powered lobbying, and big-time political contributions is paying off with favorable results (at least from Monsanto’s perspective) in Congress. But we expect policy-makers here in Washington to take note of our ads—which will be up all this month on city buses and in transit stations near the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s headquarters, the U.S. EPA, and Capitol Hill. And we hope those decision-makers—who are accountable to farmers and the public to really improve agriculture—will look more skeptically at Monsanto’s claims in the future and give sustainable alternatives a fair shot.

UCS still believes that the truth can be powerful, and you can help us tell it far and wide.

Take a look at our ads, and help us spread the word via Twitter or Facebook. Oh, and if you’re in the DC area, keep an eye out for our ads on Metrobuses. If you spot one and send us a photo, we’ll thank you with a reusable UCS shopping bag!

 

Posted in: Food and Agriculture Tags: 

About the author: Karen Perry Stillerman is an analyst and advocate for transforming the U.S. agriculture and food system to one that produces affordable, healthful foods for consumers; reduces air and water pollution; and builds healthy soil for the farmers of tomorrow. She holds a master's degree in public affairs and environmental policy.

Support from UCS members make work like this possible. Will you join us? Help UCS advance independent science for a healthy environment and a safer world.


728x90
728x90

—By 

| Wed Jul. 4, 2012 3:00 AM PDT

현재 몇 년 동안 사람들은 기후변화가 농업에 미칠 영향이 어떨지 궁금해 했다. 인류는 상승하는 기온과 반복되는 가뭄의 시기 동안 어떻게 먹고 살 것인가?

여기 미국에서 우린 맛보기 시작했다 —그리고 그건 쓰디 쓰다. 무더위가 현재 미국 작물의 거의 전부인 주로 옥수수, 콩, 밀을 재배하는 지역을 덮쳤다. 블룸버그 뉴스에 따르면, 중서부의 71%가 "정상 상태보다 건조한" 상황이고 기온은 옥수수/콩을 핵심으로 재배하는 주인 미주리, 일리노이, 인디아나에서 7월 7일 이후에도 32도 이상일 것으로 산출되었다.

그 결과 골드만 삭스는 올해 옥수수 수확량이 1200평에 166부셸일 거란 미 농무성의 산출보다 7.5% 떨어질 것으로 산출했다. (왜 골드만 삭스 같은 월스트리트의 괴수가 옥수수 수확량으로 호들갑인가? 완전히 다른 이야기지만 흥미로운 일이다). 따라서 작물 가격이 가파르게 오를 것이라고 블룸버그는 보고한다.

물론 장기적인 기후 경향에 개별적인 무더위를 연관시킬 수는 없다 —기후가 안정적일 때조차 수많은 예측할 수 없는 기후의 변화상이 있다. 그러나 우린 더위와 가뭄이 식물의 성장을 가로막고 수확량을 줄인다는 걸 안다 —그리고 우린 또한 주요 농업 지역에서 기후온난화로 인하여 더 무덥고 가문 날씨를 겪을 수 있다는 것을 안다.

오랫동안 지구온난화가 농업에는 더하든지 덜하든지 별 영향이 없을 거란 여론이 있었기에, 나는 현재의 무더위가 정책입안자들이 식량에 미치는 기후변화의 영향에 대해 생각할 계기가 되길 바란다. 물론 기후변화가 가뭄을 더 일반적으로 만들고 어떤 지역은 너무 더워 농업에 적합하지 않게 될 것이다; 그러나 또한 미국 중서부와 같은 겨울이 추운 지역에서 영농철을 늘리고, 아마 작물 수확량도 높일 것이다. 또한 우리가 화석연료를 태워 대기로 퍼붓는 모든 이산화탄소가 식물이 더 빨리 성장하도록 하는 양식이 될 것이다. 대개 생각하는 이러한 요소들은 대체로 서로를 무효화하여, 세계의 식량생산에 기후변화가 큰 영향을 미치지 않는다는 걸 뜻한다. 

그러나 2008년으로 돌아가, 미 농무성과 콜롬비아 대학의 연구자 한 쌍이 위로가 되는 생각을 산산이 부수었다. 국립 경제국 연구의 논문에서, 그들은 미국의 세 가지 주요 작물(옥수수, 콩, 목화)를 고찰하고 기온 상승이 작물 수확량을 약간 증가시킨다는 걸 —특정 지점까지 증가— 발견했다. 그러나 기온이 임계점 이상 오를 때 수확량은 엄청나게 떨어질 것이다. 그리고 여기서 뜻밖의 전개가 이루어진다: 현재의 온실가스 배출 수준에서, 평균 기온은 연구자들이 검증한 위험한 수준 이상으로 오를 것이라 예상됐다. 그 결과, 그들은 이번 세기가 끝날 때까지 "온난화가 가장 느린 속도로 진행된다는 가정 하에" 수확량이 43% 이상 떨어질 것이고, "온난화가 가장 빠른 속도로 진행된다는 가정에서는" 73%까지 떨어질 것이라 산출한다. 

그 논문은 미국과 세계의 정책 사회에 폭탄처럼 폭발했다. 미국은 저자들이 지적하듯 세계의 옥수수와 콩 가운데 약 40%를 생산한다. 세계의 식량체계는 그러한 작물에 고도로 연결되어 있으며, 미국의 심장부에서 생산이 감소하는 건 충격적일 것이다. 당신은 정책입안자들이 행동하지 않을 수 없을 거라 생각할 것이다. 대신 그들은 다른 방법을 찾았다. 상원에서 굴욕적으로 무너진 기후법안과 훨씬 야단법석이었던 코펜하겐 세계 기후회담에 대한 오바마 대통령의 미적지근한 압박은 뜨거운 공기의 구름을 날려버렸다.

몬산토 자신의 자료에 따르면, 그들의 가뭄 저항성 옥수수 종자는 기존의 관행 품종들보다 더 잘 작용하지 않는다.

그러고 나서 2011년 Science에 발표된 또 다른 주요 연구는 기후변화가 이미 주요 작물의 수확량을 줄이고 있다는 것을 발견했다. 2008년까지 세계의 옥수수와 밀의 수확량이 기후변화가 없을 때보다 각각 3.8%와 5.5%가 떨어졌다는 걸 발견했다. 콩과 쌀에 대해서는 기후변화의 좋고 나쁜 영향이 주로 상쇄되었음을 발견했다. 그러나 이러한 작물들 역시 결국 기온이 계속 오르면 수확량이 떨어질 수 있다. 

이에 관해 무얼 해야 하는가? 특히 앞으로 당장 온실가스 배출을 감축하기 위한 협정이 이루어지지 않을 것처럼 보이는 이때. 

종래의 대답이 있다: 유전자조작 종자시장에서 지배적인 위치의 몬산토를 믿어라. 2008년으로 돌아가, 그 기업은 "증가하는 수요, 제한된 자연자원, 변화하는 기후에 직면하여 세계의 식량생산을 증가시키겠다"는 공약을 발표했다. 그것은 "토지면적당 더 많은 생산, 그리고 에너지와 비료, 생산단위당 물 사용의 감소의 결과"로 유전자조작된 새로운 씨앗이 그렇게 할 것이다. 그 기업은 "2030년까지 2000년에 비교하여 옥수수, 콩, 목화라는 세 가지 핵심 작물의 수확량을 2배로 만들겠다"고 단언했다.

미국 정책입안자들은 대개 그 견해를 샀다. 오바마 대통령이 발표한 "미래를 먹여 살리는" 기획이란 성명에서, 미 농무성의 수장 Tom Vilsack 씨는 업계를 뒷받침하는 말을 되풀이했다. 그는 적었다:

전 세계의 생산자들은 또한 더 적은 물과 농약과 에너지를 사용하면서 단위면적당 더 많은 생산을 하는 기존의 그리고 새로운 기술을 계속해서 받아들여야 한다. 우린 농민들이 생명공학, 보존 경운, 점적 관수, 다모작 농법과 같이 타당하고 입증된 기술을 채택하도록 장려해야 한다. 

그러나 문제는 이러한 새로운 기술을 실현시키는 데 실패했다는 것이다. 지금까지 몬산토는 이러한 놀라운 종자 가운데 하나인 미 농무성이 지난해 사용을 승인한 가뭄 저항성 옥수수 품종을 생산하는 데 성공했다. 그 순간은 몬산토에게 위대한 승리였지만, 한 가지 문제가 발생했다: 몬산토 자신의 자료에 따르면, 그 종자는 이미 기존의 관행 품종보다 더 잘 작용하지 않았고, 미 농무성은 작물의 최종 환경평가에서만큼은 인정했다. 우려하는 과학자 연합(Union of Concerned Scientists)의 Doug Gurian-Sherman 씨는 질소와 을 더 효율적으로 활용하는 작물을 조작하려는 몬산토의 노력을 면밀하게 살피고, 어디에도 획기적인 발전은 거의 없다고 결론을 내렸다. 여기 Gurian-Sherman 씨가 왜 식물이 물을 활용하는 방식과 같은 복잡한 기능을 개량하는 것이 어려운지 이야기한 내용이 있다:

가뭄 저항성은 식물이 가뭄에 반응할 수 있는 다양한 방식에 대응하는 여러 다양한 유전자를 포함할 수 있는 복잡한 특성이다; 유전자조작은 한번에 몇 가지 유전자만 조작할 수 있다. 그리고 현실 세계에서 가뭄은 강도와 지속기간에 다양한 변화가 있어 작물의 여러 성장 단계에 영향을 미치고, 따라서 어떠한 조작된 유전자는 다른 여러 상황보다 일정한 가뭄의 조건에서 더 성공적일 것이다. 가뭄에 저항하도록 개선된 유전자는 작물의 성장에 다른 영향을 줄 수 있고, 그 중 일부는 바람직하지 않을 수 있다 —다면발현으로 알려진 현상. 이는 일반적으로 기대할 수 있는 가뭄 저항성 유전자 이외의 많은 것과 함께 관찰되고, 식물 성장의 여러 측면과 함께 가뭄 반응의 상호연관을 반영하는 것일 듯하다.

풍요로운 미래에 대한 몬산토의 최첨단 약속이 매우 과장되어 보인다면, 우리는 어떻게 기후변화 속에서 풍요로움을 유지해야 한다는 과제에 답할 수 있겠는가? 나는 다음 글에서 그 질문을 살펴볼 것이다.

728x90

'농담 > 농-생태계' 카테고리의 다른 글

제초제 없는 양구 만들기  (0) 2012.08.09
논과 생물다양성  (0) 2012.07.05
홍성 축산 배출수 사용 벼 고사  (0) 2012.07.04
고맙다, 둠벙!  (0) 2012.06.27
변경의 농업생태계  (0) 2012.06.26
728x90


Industrial food model and soy-based aquaculture a disaster for fish, environment

- Common Dreams staff

Agribusiness behemoths including Monsanto and Cargill are set to cash in big from industrial fish farming or “aquaculture” as the soy industry spreads its reign to the seas, a new report from environmental and consumer watchdogs shows.

The new report, “Factory-Fed Fish: How the Soy Industry is Expanding Into the Sea” from Food & Water Watch and Food & Water Europe, shows how the use of soy as feed in aquaculture -- branded as "sustainable" -- is an environmental disaster, harming fish both wild and farmed as it pollutes the oceans and brings unknown effects to consumers eating the soy-fed fish.

“Our seas are not Roundup ready,” said Wenonah Hauter, Executive Director of Food & Water Watch, referring to the 93 to 94 percent of soybeans produced in the United States that are genetically modified by Monsanto to tolerate the application of its Roundup herbicide.

The growing of Monsanto's soy has led to an increase in the use of herbicides, the report states, and its planting on large scales has led to massive deforestation, which exacerbates climate change and displaces indigenous communities.

“Soy is being promoted as a better alternative to feed made from wild fish, but this model will not help the environment, and it will transfer massive industrial farming models into our oceans and further exacerbate the havoc wreaked by the soy industry on land—including massive amounts of dangerous herbicide use and massive deforestation,” stated Hauter.

Once grown, the soy feed continues its adverse effects. Not being the natural food for fish, the farmed fish excrete more waste, which pollutes the open waters.  In addition, some of these soy-fed fish will escape and breed with wild fish, affecting natural populations.  Excess feed will escape as well, causing unknown damage to wild populations.

Despite these risks, soy has been touted as a more ecologically-sound alternative to feed in aquaculture, notably by the American Soy Association.

According to the report, "the rising use of soy in fish farming industries will mean that notorious agribusinesses like Monsanto, which has sponsored feed trials with genetically modified soy and salmon, and Cargill, which has an aquaculture feed division, will play a hand in seafood production." The report notes that half of the seafood consumed globally is through aquaculture, creating a potential gold mine in profits for these companies.

Tingwall to "Fair Isle" returnAerial view of fish farm. (photo: nz_willowherb)


728x90
728x90

—By 

| Mon Jul. 2, 2012 3:00 AM PDT

If you want your crops to bear fruit, you have to feed the soil. Few industries understand that old farming truism better than ag-biotech—the few companies that dominate the market for genetically modified seeds and other novel farming technologies. And they realize that the same wisdom applies to getting what you want in Washington, DC.

According to this 2010 analysis from Food & Water Watch, the ag-biotech industry spent $547.5 million between 1999 and 2009. It employed more than 100 lobbying firms in 2010 alone, FWW reports, in addition to their own in-house lobbying teams.

The gusher continues. The most famous ag-biotech firm of all, Monsanto, spent $1.4 million on lobbying in the first three months of 2012, after shelling out $6.3 million total last year, "more than any other agribusiness firm except the tobacco company Altria," reports the money-in-politics tracker OpenSecrets.org. Industry trade groups like the Biotechnology Industry Organization and Croplife America have weighed in with $1.8 million and $524,000, respectively.

What fruits have been borne by such generous fertilizing of the legislative terrain? It's impossible to tie the fate of any bit of legislation directly to an industry's lobbying power, but here are two unambiguous legislative victories won on the Hill this month by Monsanto and its peers.


• As part of a flurry of last-minute activity ahead of last week's Senate farm bill vote, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) brought up an amendment that would have explicitly allowed individual states to do something the industry has long vigorously opposed: require the labeling of foods containing GM ingredients.

In doing so, Sanders was likely responding to events in his home state—the Vermont Legislature recently considered a wildly popular bill that would have required labeling of GMOs, but it collapsed amid fears among lawmakers that Monsanto would sue the state. A congressional statement on the right of states to label GMOs would go a long way toward allaying those fears.

The Sanders amendment might have been expected to draw bipartisan support. Polls consistently show that more than 90 percent of Americans, Democrats and Republicans alike, favor labeling of GMO foods. In addition, there was something in it for both sides: for Republican senators, an affirmation of states' rights; for Democrats, a thumb in the eye to a powerful industry that would have energized the lefty base.

Yet Sanders' amendment proved unpopular on both sides of the aisle, crashing by a vote of 73-26. (A listing of individual senators' votes can be found here.)

To fight the push to label GMO foods, Big Ag lobbying groups have rolled out the Coalition Against the Costly Food Labeling Proposition.

The battle over labeling now shifts to California, where voters will consider a GM-labeling proposition in November. Tony Corbo of Food & Water Watch told me that the defeat of the Sanders amendment means that a successful California proposition could be nullified in court, based on the argument that states can't require more rigorous labeling than the FDA does.

Yet the ag-biotech industry is leaving nothing to chance. It rolled out the Coalition Against the Costly Food Labeling Proposition with "major funding by Council for Biotechnology Information and Grocery Manufacturers Association," as the group's website puts it. In just the first three months of 2012—before the labeling proposition even made it to ballot—those two organizations had already donated $625,000 to the coalition, according to the California Department of State. That's the most recent number available—I'll be checking in for updates as the November election draws nearer.

• The second recent gift to the industry emerged from the other chamber of Congress, the House. There, while the House agriculture appropriations subcommittee mulled a bill on ag spending for 2013, subcommittee chair Jack Kingston (R-Ga.) inserted a pro-industry provision that that has nothing to do with agriculture appropriations.

The provision Kingston added—a single paragraph buried in a 90-page bill, Bloomberg reports—would allow farmers to plant GM crops even during legal appeals of the USDA's approval process, and even if a federal court orders that the crops not be planted. The provision addresses one of the ag-biotech industry's most persistent complaints: that the USDA approval process keeps rubber-stamping its novel products, but an anti-GMO group called the Center for Food Safety keeps launching, and winning, lawsuits charging that the USDA didn't properly assess the environmental impact of the novel crops, thus delaying their release into farm fields. (I described the process in detail in this 2011 post).

Kingston had already established himself as a friend of the industry. In April, the Biotechnology Industry Organization, whose members include ag-biotech giants Monsanto and DuPont,named him its "legislator of the year for 2011-2012." BIO declared Kingston a "champion of America's biotechnology industry" who has "helped to protect funding for programs essential to the survival of biotechnology companies across the United States." BIO has deep intimate institutional knowledge of how Congress works—its president and CEO, James C. Greenwood, has crept through the revolving door between government and industry, taking his current position in 2005 immediately after a 12-year run as a US congressman from Pennsylvania.

Before Kingston's subcommittee voted on the bill, Greenwood lobbied in favor of it, Bloombergreports.

A "stream of lawsuits" have slowed approvals and created uncertainties for companies developing the modified plants, James C. Greenwood, president of the Biotechnology Industry Organization…said in a June 13 letter to Congress. "The regulatory certainty provided by this legislative language would address an immediate threat to the regulatory process."

The bill, complete with its gift to the industry, sailed through the ag appropriations subcommittee and will likely be taken up by the full House soon after the July 4 recess. Food & Water Watch's Tony Corbo told me the provision has a solid chance it making it into law. Meanwhile, Rep. Peter DeFazio (D-Ore.) has signaled he will sponsor an amendment to the ag appropriations bill that would nullify Kingston's Monsanto-friendly provision.

If the provision survives DeFazio's amendment and makes it to the Senate, what are its chances of becoming the law of the land? Corbo suggested that voting on Sanders' labeling amendment might serve as a proxy for how the upper chamber would treat the House ag subcommittee's gift to ag biotech. In other words, the Senate is fertile ground for the provision.


728x90
728x90

UCS는 우리의 새로운 광고운동을 공유하여 정확히 짚고 넘어가는 걸 돕는다


몬산토의 광고는 농산업의 거대한 업적에 대해 인상적으로 이야기한다: 늘어나는 인구의 부양. 자연자원의 보호. 생물다양성의 촉진. 

멋지게 들리지만, 불행히도 함정이 있다: 이러한 주장은 과장되고, 오도되거나 철저한 거짓이다. 몬산토의 제품 —그리고 그들이 조장하는 농법— 은 기업의 이윤을 유지시키지만, 우리의 식량과 농법의 변화에 진정으로 지속가능한 해결책을 가져오는 데에는 장애물이란 여러 증거가 밝혀졌다. 

아래의 광고들에서 우린 USC의 분석을 통해 수집한 몇몇 사실들과 함께 몬산토의 자기만족적 수사법을 깨버린다. 친구들과 이를 공유하고 퍼뜨리자: 건강한 농법이 실행될 때 문산토는 실패한다!


(사진을 클릭하면 크게 볼 수 있음)





#1: 더 많은 제초제 + 더 적은 나비 = 더 나은 씨앗?

몬산토는 말한다: "농부의 손에서, 더 나은 씨앗은 우리의 빠르게 늘어나는 인구의 수요를 충족시키면서 지구의 자연자원을 보호하는 데 도움이 될 수 있다."

사실: 몬산토의  Roundup 제초제에 저항성을 갖도록 유전자조작된 Roundup Ready 작물은 1996~2008년 사이 제초제 사용을 3억 8300만 파운드로 증가시켰다고 추정된다. 그리고 라운드업 레디가 도입된 이후 서식지가 파괴된 덕에 왕나비(Monarch butterflies)는 81%의 더 적은 알을 낳는다





#2: 슈퍼잡초의 번성

몬산토는 말한다: "우리의 급속한 인구 성장은 압력을 높여 자원 -땅, 물, 에너지와 같은- 의 한계에 처하게 만들고 있다."

사실: 그 과제는 현실이지만, 몬산토의 제품은 해답이 아니다. UCS의 분석은 지금까지 GE 작물이 미국의 수확량을 개선시키는 데 매우 작은 기여만 했음을 밝혔다. 한편 —빠르게 성장하는 인구에 대한 답으로— 라운드업 레디 작물을 남용하는 것은 "슈퍼잡초"의 비극을 낳고, 미국 농민들에게 엄청난 문제를 일으키고 있다.





#3: 가뭄 저항성에 대한 완전 거짓

몬산토는 말한다: "올바른 도구와 함께 농민은 더 많은 미래세대를 위해 자연을 보존할 수 있다."

사실: 농민이 더 많은 물을 보존하길 바란다면, 몬산토의 DroughtGard 옥수수는 올바른 도구가 아니다. UCS의 최근 연구는 농민이 물 사용을 줄이는 데에 DroughtGard가 도움이 되지 않는다는 사실을 발견했다 —그리고 유전자조작된 가뭄 저항성은 일반적 가뭄의 상황에만 도움이 될 것이다. (연구는 유기농업의 방법이 가뭄이 든 해의 수확량을 96%까지 높인다는 걸 밝혔다.)

 



출처 http://www.ucsusa.org/food_and_agriculture/science_and_impacts/impacts_genetic_engineering/monsanto-fails-at-improving.html

728x90
728x90

By Twilight Greenaway

It’s that exciting time of the year again when the Senate and House Appropriations Committees gets together to hash out the annual agriculture budget. I know, right? Really fun stuff.

This year, in addition to the usual underfunding of legislation that could make the food system more sustainable, the appropriations process has become especially charged, thanks to a one-paragraph addition called the “farmer assurance provision.” The provision — which the agriculture committee approved last week, but has yet to go to the full House — would allow farmers to plant and grow GMO crops before they’ve been deemed safe. Or, more accurately, if it passes, farmers will be able to plant these crops while legal battles ensue over their safety.

Groups ranging from the Center for Food Safety and the National Family Farm Coalition to the American Civil Liberties Union, the Sierra Club, and the Union of Concerned Scientists are all opposing the provision, which they’re calling the “Monsanto Protection Act.”

As it stands now, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) can suspend planting while the environmental impact of one of these crops is being assessed. Or that’s how it’s been in theory at least.

And it is what happened in 2007 when a federal judge overturned the USDA’s approval of GMO alfalfa, in response to a lawsuit filed by farmers and the Center for Food Safety. (Planting of alfalfa resumed again in 2011 when the USDA fully deregulated the crop.)

In the case of GMO sugar beets, another hotly contested crop, planting was supposed to be suspended, but by the point that suspension was ordered, the market had been cleared out and there were no longer enough non-GMO seeds. As we reported recently, “America faced the prospect of a 20-percent reduction in that year’s sugar crop. In response — and in defiance of the federal judge’s order — the USDAallowed farmers to plant GM sugar beets anyway.” Now, all this back and forth could be moot to most farmers (unless a crop is officially, finally deemed unsafe — and well, that hasn’t happened yet.)

Needless to say, producers of big commodity crops are excited at the prospect. As Businessweek reports:

The American Soybean Association, one of nine U.S. agriculture groups supporting the House provision, said the legislation would give farmers assurance they can plant and harvest modified crops during legal challenges.

The Center for Food Safety, which has sued over USDA approvals of biotech crops, called the bill’s language a “Monsanto profit assurance provision” that interferes with judicial oversight of agency decisions and has the potential to disrupt the global grain trade.

It only makes sense that the soybean industry would be glad to see these “legal challenges” disappear, since a whopping 94 percent of soybeans planted in this country are now genetically engineered to be herbicide resistant.

The sad fact is, the USDA’s oversight over the biotech industry has been eroding slowly for a while. If this provision makes it through the full House vote, the agency will have just about lost the reigns completely.


728x90
728x90



A growing number of rootworms are now able to devour genetically modified corn specifically designed by Monsanto to kill those same pests. A new study shows that while the biotech giant may triumph in Congress, it will never be able to outsmart nature.

Western corn rootworms have been able to harmlessly consume the genetically modified maize, a research paper published in the latest issue of the journal GM Crops & Food reveals. A 2010 sample of the rootworm population had an elevenfold survival rate on the genetically modified corn compared to a control population. That’s eight times more than the year before, when the resistant population was first identified. 

Experts are also noting that this year’s resistant rootworm populations are maturing earlier than expected. In fact, the time the bug’s larvae hatched was the earliest in decades.

The Western corn rootworm 'season' is underway at a pace earlier than I have experienced since I began studying this versatile insect as a graduate student in the late 1970s,” entomologist Mike Gray wrote in The Bulletin, a periodical issued by the University of Chicago’s Department of Crop Studies.

Studies in other states have also revealed that the rootworm population is becoming increasingly resistant to genetically modified corn. Last year, Iowa State University researcher Aaron Gassmann noted that a number of farmers reported discovering, much to their dismay, that a large number of rootworms survived after the consumption of their GM crops. Gassmann branded these pests “superbugs.” 

Farmers and food companies have increasingly been dependent on GM crops, and many have abandoned crop rotation, a practice that has been used to stave off pest infestations for centuries. Some have even gone as far as to ignore federal regulation, which require the GM corn plantations be accompanied by a small “refuge” of non-GM maize. 

The recent findings have potentially devastating ramifications for both farmers and consumers. Genetic maize plantation would easily come under attack from the swelling number of “superbugs,” resulting in dwindling harvest numbers for farmers. Ultimately, consumers will pay the price not only for corn, an essential product whose derivatives are used in a plethora of products ranging from yogurts to baby powder, but for other crops sold in the market. Rising corn prices would mean that more farmers would plant corn, despite the risks, and the yield for other crops would drop. That would drive prices for virtually all food items up, hitting hard on a population already smitten by ongoing economic difficulties.

Monsanto launched its anti-rootworm GM corm in 2003. The Cry3Bb1 protein, derived from the Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt.) bacterium, was inserted into the corn’s genetic code. The embedded protein was supposed to be fatal to all rootworms. 

The recent findings came days after Monsanto, along with other biotech companies, got a major boost from a congressional panel, which okayed the manufacture of GM crops despite pending legal challenges. Many of the lawsuits that Monsanto faces include assessments that its crops are unsafe for human consumption and affect the health of unborn children. 

Monsanto has also been an active plaintiff itself. Its primary targets include entities that seek to label GM foods, and small farmers, whom the biotech behemoth accuses of using genetically modified crops patented by Monsanto.


728x90
728x90

Monsanto and the Gates Foundation claim genetically modified crops will revolutionize agriculture in Kenya, but critics warn the technology is ill-suited to the needs of farmers.


NAIROBI, Kenya—In the sprawling hills of the Kangundo district in Kenya’s Eastern Province, just a few hours outside of capital city Nairobi, Fred Kiambaa has been farming the same small, steep plot of land for more than 20 years.

Born and raised just outside Kathiini Village in Kangundo, Kiambaa knows the ups and downs of agriculture in this semi-arid region. He walks up a set of switchbacks to Kangundo’s plateaus to tend his fields each morning and seldom travels further than a few miles from his plot.

Right now, all that remains of his maize crop are rows of dry husks. Harvest season finished just two weeks ago, and the haul was meager this time around.

“Water is the big problem, it’s always water. We have many boreholes, but when there is no rain, it’s still difficult,” he said.

Kiambaa and his wife, Mary, only harvested 440 pounds of maize this season, compared to their usual 2,200. They have six children, meaning there will be many lean months before the next harvest, and worse: Though March is Kenya’s rainiest month, it’s been mostly dry so far.

“The rain surely is not coming well this year. Rain is the key. We can only pray,” he said.

WONDER CROPS?

Farmers like Kiambaa are central to a push to deploy genetically modified (GM) technology within Kenya. In recent years, donors such as the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation have invested millions of dollars into researching, developing and promoting GM technology, including drought-resistant maize, within the country — and have found a great deal of success in doing so through partnerships with local NGOs and government bodies.

The Kenya Agricultural Research Institute (KARI), a semi-autonomous government research institution, recently announced that after years of trials, genetically modified drought-resistant maize seeds will be available to Kenyan farmers within the next five years. Trial GM drought-resistant cotton crops are already growing in Kidoko, 240 miles southeast of Nairobi.

Researchers and lobbyists argue that in a country so frequently stricken by food shortages, scientific advancements can put food into hungry bellies. Drought-resistant seeds and vitamin-enriched crops could be agricultural game changers, they say.

But serious concerns about viability, corporate dependency and health effects linger — even while leading research firms and NGOs do their best to smooth them over.

Agriculture dominates Kenya’s economy, although more than 80 percent of its land is too dry and infertile for efficient cultivation. Kenya is the second largest seed consumer in sub-Saharan Africa, and Nairobi is a well-known hub for agricultural research. According to the Ministry of Agriculture, farming is the largest contributor to Kenya’s gross domestic product, and 75 percent of Kenyans made their living by farming in 2006.

Half of the country’s total agricultural output is non-marketed subsistence production — meaning farms like Kiambaa’s, where nothing is sold and everything is consumed.

On top of that, the country is still reeling from the worst drought in half a century, which affected an estimated 13 million people across the Horn of Africa in 2011. Kenya is home to the world’s largest refugee camp, housing 450,000 Somalis fleeing violence and famine, increasing the pressure to deal with food security challenges.

Prime Minister Raila Odinga recently called on parliament to assist the estimated 4.8 million Kenyans, in a country of about 40 million, who still rely on government food supports, as analysts predict that this year’s rainy season will be insufficient to guarantee food security.

“The situation is not good... Arid and semi-arid regions have not recovered from the drought,” Odinga said.

At the African Agricultural Technology Foundation (AATF), a massive NGO working on GM research and development in partnership with KARI, Regulatory Affairs Manager Dr. Francis Nang’ayo says GM crops are “substantially equivalent” to non-genetically modified foods and should be embraced as a solution to persistent drought and hunger.

In 2008, the AATF received a $47 million grant from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. This partnership involved the Howard G. Buffett Foundation and American seed giant Monsanto.

In 2005, the Water-Efficient Maize for Africa (WEMA) program became one of the first main partners in a program aimed at developing drought-resistant maize for small-scale African farmers. Monsanto promised to provide seeds for free. The Gates Foundation claimed at the time that biotechnology and GM crops would help end poverty and food insecurity in sub-Saharan Africa. In 2010, the Wall Street Journal reported that the Gates Foundation had invested $27.6 million in Monsanto shares.

Donors had been investing millions in KARI for decades in an effort to develop seeds that would produce pest- and disease-resistant plants and produce higher yields. Monsanto promised results, with the goal of distributing its seeds to small-scale farmers across Kenya, Mozambique, South Africa, Tanzania and Uganda.

Since then WEMA’s African partners have made major strides in bringing GM crops to Kenya, most notably when KARI announced in March that it is set to introduce genetically modified maize to farmers’ fields by 2017. Until 2008, South Africa had been the only country using GM technology. Now Kenya, Tanzania, Uganda, Malawi, Mali, Zimbabwe, Nigeria and Ghana are researching GM seeds and growing trial crops of cotton, maize and sorghum.

“Five years ago it was only South Africa that had a clear policy. Since then a number of countries have put their acts together by publishing policies on GM technology laws. In Kenya we’re moving on to create institutional mechanisms,” said Dr. Nang’ayo.

Deeply Divided

But Nang’ayo and his team face several challenges. Popular opinion on the technology is deeply divided in Kenya, in large part due to suspicions about the giant foreign corporations that control it.

Monsanto-patented seeds are usually costly, which has led to numerous accusations of exploitation and contemporary colonialism. But how long will these particular strains of seeds last? What are the guarantees? Critics fear dependence on corporate fertilizers and pesticides, the emergence of super-weeds and pests that can no longer repel GM varieties, and terminator seeds that only last for one planting season.

At Seattle’s AGRA Watch, a project of the Community Alliance for Global Justice, director Heather Day said there aren’t enough questions being asked about introducing GM technology to developing countries.

“Our campaign started because of our concern about the Gates Foundation’s influence on agriculture and the lack of transparency and accountability. We also have ecological concerns, in terms of food sovereignty and farmers’ ability to control their food system. We need to be concerned about the industrialization of the agricultural system,” she said.

AGRA Watch’s objective is to monitor and question the Gates Foundation’s push for a “green revolution” in Africa.

Monsanto has promised an indefinite supply of royalty-free seeds for this project, but Day said the pitfalls have the potential to devastate the continent’s agriculture.

“Genetically modified crops actually haven’t been that successful,” Day said. “We’ve seen massive crop failure in South Africa, and farmers there couldn’t get financial remedies or compensation for their losses. There’s genetic resistance and super-pests, these things are happening now, and it’s not surprising. It’s what you would expect from an ecological standpoint.”

The horror stories are real — in India, for example, farmers who purchased Bollgard I cotton seeds from 2007 to 2009 wound up spending four times the price of regular seeds, and paying dearly for it. It was believed that Monsanto’s patented GM seeds would be resistant to pink bollworms, which were destroying cotton crops across swaths of India, but by 2010 Monsanto officials were forced to admit that the seed had failed and a newer breed of far more aggressive pests had emerged. The solution? Bollgard II, an even stronger GM cotton seed.

As of December 2011, Monsanto was actively promoting the latest Bollgard III cotton seed, stronger than ever before. Pesticide spending in India skyrocketed between 2007 and 2009, forcing thousands of farmers into crushing debt, and hundreds more into giving up their land. Some media outlets later drew a connection between the Bollgard debacle and a rash of suicides across farms that had purchased the seeds.

Land Grabs

Kenya is a country where land-grabbing is all too common, be it on the coast to make way for new tourist resorts, or in Nairobi, where slum demolitions left hundreds homeless when the government bulldozed several apartment buildings to reclaim an area near the Moi Air Base.

Farmers here are skeptical of risking everything for a few seasons of higher yields. In Kangundo, Kiambaa said he would try GM technology if it was a matter of life or death — but he is wary.

Kiambaa uses the Katumani breed of maize, a widely available seed that is reasonably drought-tolerant and affordable. Higher yields are tempting, of course, but Kiambaa said he doesn’t want to chance his livelihood on a foreign corporation. While his family has been on the land for decades now, Kiambaa said they didn’t get to farm it until British colonialists returned it to local farmers. He pointed out trees that line the steep hillside, planted by the British.

“It’s because of Mzungus that we have charcoal,” he said, smiling wryly.

After the last harvest, Kiambaa can’t even afford to use Kenya’s standard DAP fertilizer, which costs 59 cents per pound. Instead, he has a lone cow tied to a post in his fields.

“This provides the fertilizer we need. We can’t afford anything else. The maize yield could have been much better, but we know our plants will grow each year. It is better we keep it the way it is. My family has been on this land for 100 years. We have always survived,” he said.

At the National Biosafety Authority (NBA), CEO Willy Tonui claims media hysteria and inaccurate reporting are to blame for resistance to GM technology, arguing the NBA maintains stringent guidelines about GM seeds in Kenya. Referring to the plans to allow GM maize seeds in by 2017, Tonui said, “The National Biosafety Authority does not have the mandate to introduce GM maize or any other crop into Kenya. We only review applications that are submitted to the authority. To date, the authority has not received any application on commercial release of GM maize or any other crop.”

Anne Maina, advocacy coordinator for the African Biodiversity Network (ABN), a coalition of 65 Kenyan farming organizations, said that’s not a good enough answer.

“Who’s controlling the industry?” she asked. “If you are going to talk to the National Biosafety Authority, they’ll tell you the information is available, but there is a confidential business information clause where whoever is controlling the industry is not held accountable. The level of secrecy and lack of transparency is unacceptable.”

Farmers’ Needs

The ABN has actively lobbied the government since 2004 to crack down on GM technology slowly filtering into Kenya, with some measure of success. A 2009 Biosafety Act required all GM imports to pass stringent government standards before entering the country.

Maina recognizes the uphill battle she’s facing.

“Our public research institutions must shift their focus back to farmers’ needs,” she told The Indypendent, “rather than support the agenda of agribusiness, which is to colonize our food and seed chain. We believe that the patenting of seed is deeply unethical and dangerous.”

Joan Baxter is a journalist who has spent years reporting on climate change and agriculture in Africa. Reporting now from Sierra Leone, Baxter was quick to point out that even if a farmer chooses not to use GM technology, it won’t guarantee crop safety.

“Farmers are always at risk of contamination from GM seeds. That has been shown in North America. The farmers [in Africa] may lose their own seeds, perhaps be given GM seeds for a year or two, then have to purchase them and be stuck in the trap and in debt,” she said.

Like Maina, Baxter sees a problem in how GM technology is being marketed, and slowly introduced, into African countries, under the guise of ending famine. With climate change becoming an increasingly influential factor in the GM debate, Baxter said companies claiming to help are only looking for profit.

“Basically this is disaster capitalism. The disaster of hunger and drought, climate change and policy-related, is now a profit opportunity for Monsanto and Syngenta. The Gates Foundation buying shares in Monsanto tells you what the real agenda is: To get GMOs in Africa,” she said.

In 2010, NBA’s CEO resigned after it was revealed that 280,000 tonnes of GM maize had found its way into Kenya from South Africa through the Port of Mombasa.

Farmers mobilized en masse after the Dreyfus scandal (named for the South African company responsible for shipping the seeds) was revealed, marching on Parliament to demand an end to secret imports. After the most recent GM announcement, however, there were no protests. The long rains that would ensure a good yield haven’t come. The drought may continue.

Added to the potential problems with GM technology are health risks—the strains of maize that were illegally imported in 2010 had been deemed unsafe for children and the elderly. Maina also worries about animal feeding trials that showed damage to liver, kidney and pancreas, effects on fertility, and stomach bleeding in livestock that has consumed GM feed. A more recent study carried out on pregnant women in Canada found genetically modified insecticidal proteins in their blood streams and in that of their unborn children, despite assurances from scientists that it wasn’t possible.

The political scandal that erupted after 2010’s illegal imports brought GM technology into the forefront of Kenyan public debate, but last year’s massive drought has shifted public and political discourse. The ABN doesn’t have a $47 million grant to keep it going, and the pressures it faces from politicians and corporations, now waging their own propaganda war, are overwhelming.

GM Treadmill

At the McLaughlin-Rotman Centre for Global Health in Toronto, researchers recently released a report titled “Factors in the adoption and development of agro-biotechnology in sub-Saharan Africa.” The report, which was financed by a grant by the Gates Foundation, came to the conclusion that “poor communication is affecting agbiotech adoption,” and that “widespread dissemination of information at the grassroots level and can spread misinformation and create extensive public concern and distrust for agbiotech initiatives.”

Lead researcher Obidimma Ezezika declined to comment on Monsanto’s involvement with GM technology, and denied that his team was creating corporate propaganda.

“I think it is important to actively and soberly engage in the debate by offering facts to the policy makers, media and public on ag-biotech which will dispel fears and anxieties,” he told The Indypendent.

The mounting evidence, health questions and political scandals all mean Kenya would be wisest to take a step back before jumping on board the GM train, says Maina.

“Our key concern is that the development of insecticides and pesticides is primarily the emergence of companies getting farmers to buy highly toxic chemicals, which they will become totally dependent on. We don’t yet know the extent of the health risks posed, nor how we are expected to trust companies that have a record of putting small farmers out of business. It is time for sober second thought,” she said.


728x90
728x90

DYERSBURG, Tenn. — For 15 years, Eddie Anderson, a farmer, has been a strict adherent of no-till agriculture, an environmentally friendly technique that all but eliminates plowing to curb erosion and the harmful runoff of fertilizers and pesticides.



Jason Hamlin, a certified crop adviser and agronomist, looks for weeds resistant to glyphosate in Dyersburg, Tenn.


Related

Invasion of the Superweeds

Michael Pollan and others on what Roundup-resistant weeds mean for American agriculture.

Green

A blog about energy and the environment.

But not this year.

On a recent afternoon here, Mr. Anderson watched as tractors crisscrossed a rolling field — plowing and mixing herbicides into the soil to kill weeds where soybeans will soon be planted.

Just as the heavy use of antibiotics contributed to the rise of drug-resistant supergerms, American farmers’ near-ubiquitous use of the weedkiller Roundup has led to the rapid growth of tenacious new superweeds.

To fight them, Mr. Anderson and farmers throughout the East, Midwest and South are being forced to spray fields with more toxic herbicides, pull weeds by hand and return to more labor-intensive methods like regular plowing.

“We’re back to where we were 20 years ago,” said Mr. Anderson, who will plow about one-third of his 3,000 acres of soybean fields this spring, more than he has in years. “We’re trying to find out what works.”

Farm experts say that such efforts could lead to higher food prices, lower crop yields, rising farm costs and more pollution of land and water.

“It is the single largest threat to production agriculture that we have ever seen,” said Andrew Wargo III, the president of the Arkansas Association of Conservation Districts.

The first resistant species to pose a serious threat to agriculture was spotted in a Delaware soybean field in 2000. Since then, the problem has spread, with 10 resistant species in at least 22 states infesting millions of acres, predominantly soybeans, cotton and corn.

The superweeds could temper American agriculture’s enthusiasm for some genetically modified crops. Soybeans, corn and cotton that are engineered to survive spraying with Roundup have become standard in American fields. However, if Roundup doesn’t kill the weeds, farmers have little incentive to spend the extra money for the special seeds.


Supplemental herbicides were applied on Eddie Anderson’s land to combat weeds that are resistant to glyphosate.

Roundup — originally made by Monsanto but now also sold by others under the generic name glyphosate — has been little short of a miracle chemical for farmers. It kills a broad spectrum of weeds, is easy and safe to work with, and breaks down quickly, reducing its environmental impact.

Sales took off in the late 1990s, after Monsanto created its brand of Roundup Ready crops that were genetically modified to tolerate the chemical, allowing farmers to spray their fields to kill the weeds while leaving the crop unharmed. Today, Roundup Ready crops account for about 90 percent of the soybeans and 70 percent of the corn and cotton grown in the United States.

But farmers sprayed so much Roundup that weeds quickly evolved to survive it. “What we’re talking about here is Darwinian evolution in fast-forward,” Mike Owen, a weed scientist at Iowa State University, said.

Now, Roundup-resistant weeds like horseweed and giant ragweed are forcing farmers to go back to more expensive techniques that they had long ago abandoned.

Mr. Anderson, the farmer, is wrestling with a particularly tenacious species of glyphosate-resistant pest called Palmer amaranth, or pigweed, whose resistant form began seriously infesting farms in western Tennessee only last year.

Pigweed can grow three inches a day and reach seven feet or more, choking out crops; it is so sturdy that it can damage harvesting equipment. In an attempt to kill the pest before it becomes that big, Mr. Anderson and his neighbors are plowing their fields and mixing herbicides into the soil.

That threatens to reverse one of the agricultural advances bolstered by the Roundup revolution: minimum-till farming. By combining Roundup and Roundup Ready crops, farmers did not have to plow under the weeds to control them. That reduced erosion, the runoff of chemicals into waterways and the use of fuel for tractors.

If frequent plowing becomes necessary again, “that is certainly a major concern for our environment,” Ken Smith, a weed scientist at the University of Arkansas, said. In addition, some critics of genetically engineered crops say that the use of extra herbicides, including some old ones that are less environmentally tolerable than Roundup, belies the claims made by the biotechnology industry that its crops would be better for the environment.

“The biotech industry is taking us into a more pesticide-dependent agriculture when they’ve always promised, and we need to be going in, the opposite direction,” said Bill Freese, a science policy analyst for the Center for Food Safety in Washington.


Mr. Anderson, who has about 3,000 acres of soybean fields, is dealing with the pest pigweed. 


So far, weed scientists estimate that the total amount of United States farmland afflicted by Roundup-resistant weeds is relatively small — seven million to 10 million acres, according to Ian Heap, director of the International Survey of Herbicide Resistant Weeds, which is financed by the agricultural chemical industry. There are roughly 170 million acres planted with corn, soybeans and cotton, the crops most affected.


Roundup-resistant weeds are also found in several other countries, including Australia, China and Brazil, according to the survey.

Monsanto, which once argued that resistance would not become a major problem, now cautions against exaggerating its impact. “It’s a serious issue, but it’s manageable,” said Rick Cole, who manages weed resistance issues in the United States for the company.

Of course, Monsanto stands to lose a lot of business if farmers use less Roundup and Roundup Ready seeds.

“You’re having to add another product with the Roundup to kill your weeds,” said Steve Doster, a corn and soybean farmer in Barnum, Iowa. “So then why are we buying the Roundup Ready product?”

Monsanto argues that Roundup still controls hundreds of weeds. But the company is concerned enough about the problem that it is taking the extraordinary step of subsidizing cotton farmers’ purchases of competing herbicides to supplement Roundup.

Monsanto and other agricultural biotech companies are also developing genetically engineered crops resistant to other herbicides.

Bayer is already selling cotton and soybeans resistant to glufosinate, another weedkiller. Monsanto’s newest corn is tolerant of both glyphosate and glufosinate, and the company is developing crops resistant to dicamba, an older pesticide. Syngenta is developing soybeans tolerant of its Callisto product. And Dow Chemical is developing corn and soybeans resistant to 2,4-D, a component of Agent Orange, the defoliant used in the Vietnam War.

Still, scientists and farmers say that glyphosate is a once-in-a-century discovery, and steps need to be taken to preserve its effectiveness.

Glyphosate “is as important for reliable global food production as penicillin is for battling disease,” Stephen B. Powles, an Australian weed expert, wrote in a commentary in January in The Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

The National Research Council, which advises the federal government on scientific matters, sounded its own warning last month, saying that the emergence of resistant weeds jeopardized the substantial benefits that genetically engineered crops were providing to farmers and the environment.

Weed scientists are urging farmers to alternate glyphosate with other herbicides. But the price of glyphosate has been falling as competition increases from generic versions, encouraging farmers to keep relying on it.

Something needs to be done, said Louie Perry Jr., a cotton grower whose great-great-grandfather started his farm in Moultrie, Ga., in 1830.

Georgia has been one of the states hit hardest by Roundup-resistant pigweed, and Mr. Perry said the pest could pose as big a threat to cotton farming in the South as the beetle that devastated the industry in the early 20th century.

“If we don’t whip this thing, it’s going to be like the boll weevil did to cotton,” said Mr. Perry, who is also chairman of the Georgia Cotton Commission. “It will take it away.


Ten resistant species of weeds in at least 22 states are infesting millions of acres.


http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/04/business/energy-environment/04weed.html?pagewanted=1&_r=3

728x90
728x90



Hey kids, can you complete this word: B _ _ T _ C H N _ L _ G Y? What’s that spell? If you said “a really neat topic [that is] helping to improve the health of the Earth and the people who call it home,” you may have been reading “Look Closer at Biotechnology,” a kids’ activity book funded by Monsanto and other biotech firms.

The book comes from the Council for Biotechnology Information, an industry organization whose members include Monsanto, Dow, DuPont, and other biotechnology companies. And based on the “teacher helpful hints” at the end, I’m guessing their goal is to make this a classroom text — especially given that the “helpful hints” are basically all “what a wonderful book this is for teaching in the classroom!”

The book describes in detail the benefits and pitfalls of biotechnology, laying out its complexities in a way even an elementary schooler can grasp. Ha ha, kidding! Instead, you will be pleased to know that this is how biotechnology works: 200 years ago, a monk named Gregor Mendel discovered genetics, and something something Monsanto is great! Also, biotechnology makes our lives better, as you will understand if you unscramble these words. In conclusion, kids, everything biotech companies do is selfless, unproblematic, and unambiguously beneficial to humanity, and anyone who tells you otherwise is probably an anti-science _ S S H _ L _.



http://grist.org/list/monsanto-picture-book-teaches-kids-about-the-wonders-of-biotech/?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter&utm_campaign=gristacct

728x90

+ Recent posts