Native Americans Promise ‘Direct Action’ to Stop The Keystone Pipeline By Any Means Necessary | The AntiMedia.Org

by: Jonathan Schoenfeld | The Anti-Media

Propositions are increasing for the development of a keystone pipeline. Because of potential environmental hazards and government theft of native american territory through eminent domain, organizations such as Honor the Earth, the Oglala Sioux Nation, Owe Aku, and Protect the Sacred have issued the following statements:

“The Oglala Lakota Nation has taken leadership by saying “NO” to the Keystone XL Pipeline. They have done what is right for the land, for their people, who, from grassroots organizers like Owe Aku and Protect the Sacred have called on their leaders to stand and protect their sacred lands. And they have: KXL will NOT cross their treaty territory, which extends past the reservation boundaries. Their horses are ready. So are ours. We stand with the Lakota Nation, we stand on the side of protecting sacred water, we stand for Indigenous land-based lifeways which will NOT be corrupted by a hazardous, toxic pipeline.”

Additionally the activists continued to urge others to contribute in the effort to combat the production of the pipeline. They implemented specific actions that contributors can practice as follows:

As Native Nations, we’re ready to protect our homelands from this pipeline, and we need to SHORE UP OUR SUPPORT of organizations like Owe Aku and Protect the Sacred, who are on the ground organizing in the Lakota Nation.

We also need to put the pressure on Barack Obama to recognize that:

1) The Lakota Nation – a sovereign governmental body – has united its government and grassroots against the pipeline, and the United States needs to honor treaty rights by denying the pipeline.

2) There is direct conflict of interest in the report issued by the State Department — the process is broken, and a new report which reflects the true environmental impact is needed.

3) This pipeline will, in fact, increase carbon emissions and cause grave and irreversible environmental harm globally. This pipeline would cause direct environmental harm — and put the well-being of all who live in relationship with the Oglala Aquifer at risk.

Canada Tarsands Image: Flickr

4) In recognition of our responsibilities to protect Mother Earth, Native peoples will not allow this pipeline to come across our treaty areas. We will defend our lives, and our mother Earth, and we need Barack Obama to do the same.

According to politicalblindspot.com:

Those who would like to become further involved and partake in seminars on knowing your rights, blockading and self-defense, first aid and social media, can receive additional information from groups such as Moccasins on the Ground. Debra White Plum of the Lakota Sioux nation is a trainer for the grassroots organization. She said that the group has been training Native activists for this moment for the past year.She says that the training has brought together many geographically distant native groups, fighting towards a common goal.

You can get involved personally and take more action against the Keystone Pipeline on 350.org.

- See more at: 

Native Americans Promise ‘Direct Action’ to Stop The Keystone Pipeline By Any Means Necessary | The AntiMedia.Org

Mexican chocolate, an act of resistance and revolution!

We live interesting times, where growing food can be a revolutionary act. We can return to our agricultural roots, for this is where we will find the lost part our soul. We can do this in our backyards, our empty urban lots, or where ever air meets soil, water, and human hands. Growing food resurrects us. Growing food to share with others enlivens us even more. I love growing food and I love connecting with the people that enjoy it.

A Hole in the Regulation of GMOs that Kudzu Could Fit Through - The Equation

The audacity of biotech borders on insanity. Check out this article on Scotts/Miracle Gro company's new GMO grass. This article appears on the Union of Concerned Scientist's web pages:

A little-noticed, almost nonchalant, article in the Columbus Dispatch last week portends substantial environmental and economic mischief.

Kudzu enveloping a Mississippi environment. It is not on the federal noxious weed list. USDA photo by Peggy Greb.

The article notes that Scotts Company is going forward with plans to commercialize GMO Kentucky bluegrass. Mentioned in passing was that this grass, engineered for resistance to the herbicide glyphosate (AKA Roundup), is not regulated by USDA, and that company employees will begin planting the grass at their homes.

What was that? Historically, unapproved GMO crops have been grown only in controlled plots, regulated and monitored by USDA (leave aside that these are not adequately regulated either). So why are Scotts employees allowed to grow this grass in an uncontrolled environment?

We have to go back to two little-noted decisions by USDA in July of 2011 to understand this. First, the USDA denied a petition from the Center for Food Safety to regulate the GMO bluegrass as a noxious weed under the Plant Protection Act of 2000 (PPA), despite fitting the agency’s criteria.

Second, USDA decided that because the genes used to make the GMO grass did not come from known plant pests (e.g., plant pathogens), and did not use a plant pest to introduce the genes into the grass, it would not be regulated as a possible plant pest. To grasp the importance of this, it must be understood that virtually every previous GMO plant or crop has been regulated as a possible plant pest.

These two decisions mean that the GMO bluegrass will not be regulated by USDA, and hence can be grown freely, even though it has not gone through the typical regulatory process. This has implications far beyond the specific case of GMO bluegrass.

In the earlier days of genetic engineering, the large majority of engineered crops contained genes or parts of genes from plant pests (such as from plant viruses), or used a modified bacterial pathogen (called Agrobacterium) to introduce the genes into plants.

But in most cases, it is now easy to avoid these constraints, as Scotts did. The use of pest genes as a reason to regulate GMOs was always unsupportable scientifically. Many genes from pathogens are no more (or less) harmful than genes from non-pathogens. But because our GMO regulations are based on inadequate laws already in existence in the 1980s, the agencies were left trying to fit a regulatory square peg into a statutory round hole, and came up with the pest-gene ruse.

Read entire article here:

A Hole in the Regulation of GMOs that Kudzu Could Fit Through - The Equation

Subway: Stop Using Dangerous Chemicals In Your Bread

Mo' Fresh. Mo' Betta.™

The Natural Effect

Mo' Fresh. Mo' Betta.™

Monsanto - Picking Up God's Slack

Farmers and Moms: Tackling Our Broken Food System | Inspired Bites

I love reading Robyn O'Brien's articles. She hits it so squarely on the head. Here is an article in response to the Monsanto Super Bowl ad.

“96% of American farms are still family owned. Which means on the farm the CEO is usually referred to as mom, and mom usually refers to her big farming operation as home,” began a Monsanto ad that ran during the half time of last night’s Super Bowl.

I’m named after one of these farmer moms.  Her husband died on the farm when he was 42.  She is this kind of CEO.

So I paid attention as the ad went on.  It was in partnership with the American Farmers.  It used moms.

As I listened, I thought of all of the moms working on farms that I have had the privilege to meet in this work.  They sit on both sides of the GMO aisle, some using this technology and the suite of chemicals required to grow genetically engineered foods, devoted to feeding our country, some opting out and using technology that does not require the use of RoundUp Ready chemicals.  I thought about the daughters of farmers that I have met, the science writers that are moms, the food entrepreneurs, the teachers, the attorneys and all of the moms that I have had the privilege of connecting with in this work.

And I thought about how all of us, regardless of whether we feed our kids genetically engineered food from large scale farms or food from our own gardens, want the same thing: happy, healthy kids and a strong country.

But that is not where we stand.  Too many of us have friends with children who have diabetes, allergies, asthma, autism, pediatric cancer and so much more.  And we’re all trying our best to feed our kids healthy food on the budgets that we have.

As I watched the ad, the words of a food industry executive (a “big food” industry executive) came to mind.  He’d shared them at a policy meeting: “No one would choose the food system we have today.”

These words had come to mind again last week, while working with two obese moms, struggling to feed their families healthy food on a restricted budget.  As one shared her frustration, her eyes welled with tears.  ”Why is the food that is so full of artificial ingredients and chemicals so cheap,” she asked, “while the food that is free from all of these additives and labeled organic so expensive?”

Clean and safe food, free from all of these additives, should be affordable to all Americans, especially in light of our escalating rates of diseases and the associated burden that health care costs are putting on our economy.

The entire article is here:

Farmers and Moms: Tackling Our Broken Food System | Inspired Bites