Contacts the bankers behind DAPL

SUBHEAD: How to contact the CEOs and others of bankers funding the Dakota Access Pipeline.

By Emily Fuller on 29 September 2016 for Yes Magazine -

Image above: Goldman Sachs is deep into the shale fossil fuel business that is wrecking the world's climate. From (

Here are CEO names, emails, and phone numbers—because banks have choices when it comes to what projects they give loans to.

The Dakota Access pipeline is funded directly by 17 banks, many of which—Citibank, Wells Fargo—are ones you’ve probably heard of or do business with.

Researchers with the nonprofit Food & Water Watch found that 38 banking institutions are involved in funding the proposed Bakken pipeline, which would stretch from Canada to the Gulf of Mexico.

A section of this project is the Dakota Access pipeline, where the Standing Rock Sioux and thousands of allies have physically put themselves in the path of the pipeline to protect their reservation and a stretch of the Missouri River.

Bill McKibben, founder of, recently wrote an article for YES! suggesting that banks are more susceptible to public pressure than the oil and gas giants, which depend on bank loans and lines of credit to build their pipelines. “It’s probably sustained public pressure that will do the most good,” he wrote.

Wondering what to say to a bank executive?

Food & Water Watch researcher Hugh MacMillan: “Ask these banks to clarify whether funds they are providing are being used, in any amount, to pay for the heavily militarized response to the Standing Rock Sioux, including the attack dogs, sound-cannon trucks, heavily armed officers, and even a crop duster spraying undetermined chemicals over the camp.

“People should also ask these institutions why they are sinking so much money into maximizing the amounts of oil and gas that can be brought to the surface and burned at a time when climate science is clear we have to maximize what we keep in the ground instead,” said MacMillan.

The organization’s deputy communications director, Seth Gladstone, suggests saying: “As a customer of your financial institution, I reject the notion of my money helping to support your investment in the Dakota Access pipeline, an inherently dangerous and unjust oil pipeline that threatens air and water quality in many states, and violates sacred lands of the Standing Rock Sioux tribe. I urge you to give up your financial stake in the Dakota Access pipeline immediately.”

Here are names of CEOs and other bank executives involved in these decisions—along with their phone numbers and email addresses. The first 17 banks (*) are directly funding the Dakota Access pipeline:

Wells Fargo*
CEO John Stumpf
Phone: 866-249- 3302

Corporate Office:
Wells Fargo
420 Montgomery Street
San Francisco, CA 94104

BNP Paribas*
CEO Jean-Laurent Bonnafe

Corporate Office:
3 rue d’Antin
75002 Paris, France
Phone: 00-33-157-082-200

U.S. Office:
787 Seventh Avenue - The Equitable Tower
New York, NY 10019
Phone: 212-841-3000

CEO William H. Rodgers Jr.

Corporate Office:
303 Peachtree Street NE
Atlanta, GA 30308
Phone: 800-786-8787

Chief Communications Officer:
Sue Mallino
Phone: 404-813-0463
The Bank of Tokyo-Mitsubishi UFJ*
Chairman Nobuyuki Hirano
CEO and President Takashi Oyamada

Corporate Office:
2-7-1, Marunouchi, Chiyoda-ku
Tokyo, Japan
Phone: 81-3-3240-8111

U.S. Office:
1251 Avenue of the Americas
New York, NY 10020-1104
Phone: 212-782-4000

Mizuho Bank*
President and CEO Nobuhide Hayashi

Corporate Office:
Otemachi Tower
1-5-5, Otemachi, Chiyoda-ku
Tokyo 100-8176, Japan
Phone: 81-3-3214-1111

U.S. Office:
1251 Avenue of the Americas
New York, NY 10020
Phone: 212-282-3000

Citibank (CitiGroup)*
CEO Michael Corbat
Phone: 212-793-1201

Corporate Office:
388 Greenwich Street
New York, NY 10013
Phone: 800-285-3000 and 212-793-0710

TD Securities*
Chairman, CEO, and President Bob Dorrance

Corporate Office:
P.O. Box 1, TD Bank Tower
66 Wellington Street W
Toronto, Ontario
M5K 1A2

Investment Banking:
Phone: 416-307-8500

Equity Research:
Phone: 416-307-9360

Trading Floor Enquiries:
Phone: 416-944-6978

U.S. Office:
31 West 52nd Street
New York, NY 10019-6101
Phone: 212-827-7000
Credit Agricole*
CEO Jean-Paul Chifflet

Corporate Office:
12, Place des Etats-Unis
Montrouge, France 92545
Phone: 33-1-43-23-52-02

U.S. Office:
1301 Avenue of the Americas,
New York, NY 10019
Intesa SanPaolo*
CEO Carlo Messina

Corporate Office:
Piazza San Carlo, 156
10121 Torino, Italy
Phone: 39-011-555-1

Corporate Social Responsibility Unit:
Phone: 39-02-8796-3435

ING Bank*
CEO and Executive Board Chairman Ralph A.J.G Hamers

Wholesale Banking, Operations & IT, Sustainability, Corporate Governance:
Carolien van der Giessen
Phone: 31-20-576-63-86

Head of Media Relations:
Raymond Vermuelen
Phone: 31-20-576-63-69

Corporate Office:
Amsterdamse Poort
Bijlmerplein 888
1102 MG Amsterdam
The Netherlands

Mailing Address:
ING Bank N.V.
P.O. Box 1800
1000 BV Amsterdam
The Netherlands

U.S. Office:
ING Financial Holdings LLC
1325 Avenue of the Americas
New York, NY 10019
Phone: 646-424-6000

CEO Pierre Servant

Corporate Office:
Natixis Global Asset Management, S.A.
21 quai d’Austerlitz
75634 Paris Cedex 13, France
Phone: 33-1-78-40-90-00

U.S. Office:
Natixis Global Asset Management, L.P.
399 Boylston Street
Boston, MA
Phone: 617-449-2100

CEO Johannes-Jorg Riegler

Head of Communications:
Matthias Priwitzer
Phone: 49-89-2171-21255

Corporate Office:
Brienner Straße 18
80333 Munich

U.S. Office:
560 Lexington Avenue
New York City, NY 10022

BBVA Securities*
CEO Carlos Torres Villa
Executive Chairman Francisco Gonzalez Rodriguez

Corporate Office:
Calle Azul, 4
28050 Madrid, Spain
Phone: 34-902-22-44-66

DNB First Bank*
CEO and President William J. Hieb
Phone: 610-269-1040

Main Branch:
4 Brandywine Avenue
Downingtown, PA 19335
Phone: 484-691-3621
ICBC London*
CEO and Managing Director Jin Chen
Corporate Office:
20 Gresham Street
London EC2V 7JE, United Kingdom
Phone: 44-203-145-5000

U.S. Office:
520 Madison Avenue 28th Floor
New York, NY 10022
Phone: 212-407-5000

SMBC Nikko Securities*
President and CEO Yoshihiko Shimizu

Corporate Office:
3-1, Marunouchi 3-chome, Chiyoda-ku
Tokyo 100-8325, Japan
Phone: 81-3-5644-3111

Societe General*
CEO Frederic Oudea

Chairman of the Board Lorenzo Bini Smaghi

Corporate Office:
29 boulevard Haussmann 75009
Paris, France
Phone: 33-1-42-14-20-00

U.S. Office:
245 Park Avenue
New York City, NY 10167
Phone: 212-278-6000

The following banks are involved in funding for the entire Bakken pipeline:

Royal Bank of Scotland
CEO Ross McEwan

Director of Media Relations:
Chris Turner
Phone: 44-20-7672-4515

Corporate Office:
175 Glasgow Road
Edinburgh, United Kingdom
Phone: 44-131-626-3263

U.S. Office:
600 Washington Boulevard
Stamford, CT 06901
Phone: 203-897-2700

ABN Amro Capital
Chairman of the Board Gerrit Zalm

Corporate Office:
Gustav Mahlerlaan 10
1082 PP Amsterdam
The Netherlands
Phone: 31-10-241-17-23

U.S. Office:
100 Park Avenue, 17th floor
New York, NY 10017
Phone: 917-284-6800

Bank of Nova Scotia (Scotiabank)
CEO and President Brian J. Porter

Corporate Office:
Scotia Plaza
44 King Street W
Toronto, Ontario
Canada M5H 1H1
Phone: 416-866-6161

U.S. Office:
250 Vesey Street,
23rd and 24th floors
New York, NY 10281
Phone: 212-225-5000

Howard Weil “Scotia Energy Investment Boutique”
Energy Centre
1100 Poydras Street Suite 3500
New Orleans, LA 70163
Phone: 504-582-2500 and 800-322-3005
Citizens Bank
Chairman and CEO Bruce Van Saun

Head of Media Relations:
Peter Lucht
Phone: 781-655-2289

Consumer Lending, Business Banking, Wealth Management, Corporate:
Lauren DiGeronimo
Phone: 781-471-1454

Corporate Office:
1 Citizens Plaza
Providence, RI 02903
Phone: 401-456-7000

Comerica Bank
Chairman and CEO Ralph W. Babb Jr.

Investor Relations:
Phone: 214-462-6831

Corporate Contacts:
Wendy Bridges
Phone: 214-462-4443

Wayne Mielke
Phone: 214-462-4463

Corporate Office:
Comerica Bank Tower
1717 Main Street
Dallas, TX 75201
Phone: 800-521-1190

U.S. Bank
Chairman and CEO Richard K. Davis

Senior Vice President of Corporate CommunicationsDana Ripley
Phone: 612-303-3167

Brand, Corporate Social Responsibility, Sponsorships:
Susan Beatty
Phone: 612-303-9229

Corporate Office:
U.S. Bancorp Center
800 Nicollet Mall
Minneapolis, MN 55402
Phone: 800-685-5065 and 651-466-3000

PNC Bank
Chairman, President, and CEO William S. Demchak

Media Relations:
Fred Solomon
Phone: 412-762-4550

Investor Relations:
Bryan K. Gill
Phone: 412-768-4143

Corporate Office:
300 Fifth Avenue
The Tower at PNC Plaza
Pittsburgh, PA 15222
Phone: 412-762-2000

Chairman John McFarlane

CEO Jes Staley

Corporate Office:
Barclays Bank PLC
1 Churchill Place
London E14 5HP, United Kingdom
Phone: 44-20-7116-1000

U.S. Office:
745 7th Avenue
New York, NY 10019
Phone: 212-526-7000

Press Office:
Phone: 212-526-7000

JPMorgan Chase
Chairman and CEO Jamie Dimon
Phone: 212-270-1111

Corporate Contacts:
Andrew Gray

Jennifer Lavoie

Brian Marchiony

Corporate Office:
270 Park Avenue
New York, NY 10017-2014

Bank of America
President, CEO, and Chairman Brian Moynihan

Executive Relations, Office of the CEO:
Matthew Task
Phone: 813-805-4873

Corporate Office:
100 N Tryon Street
Charlotte, NC 28255

Deutsche Bank
CEO John Cryan

Corporate Contact:
Renee Calabro
Phone: 212-250-5525

Corporate Office:
Deutsche Bank AG
Taunusanlage 12
60325 Frankfurt Am Main (for letters and postcards: 60262)
Phone: 49-69-910-00

U.S. Office:
Deutsche Bank AG
60 Wall Street
New York, NY 10005

Compass Bank
Chairman and CEO Manolo Sanchez

Director of External Communications:
Christina Anderson

Al Ortiz
Phone: 281-433-5640

Corporate Office:
15 S 20th Street
Birmingham, AL 35233
Phone: 205-297-1986

Credit Suisse
CEO Tidjane Thiam

Board Chairman Urs Rohner

Suisse Banking Ombudsman:
Bahnhofplatz 9
P.O. Box 1818
CH 8021 Zurich, Switzerland
Phone: 41-43-266-14-14

Corporate Office:
Uetlibergstrasse 231
P.O. Box 700
CH 8070 Zurich, Switzerland
Phone: 41-44-333-11-11

U.S. Office:
650 California Street
San Francisco, CA 94108
Phone: 415-249-2100

DNB Capital/ASA
CEO Rune Bjerke

Chairwoman of the Board Anne Carine Tanum
Pbone: 47-915-04800

Executive Vice President Communications
Even Westerveld
Phone: 47-400-16-744

Corporate Address:
Dronning Eufemias Gate 30
0191 Oslo, Norway

Sumitomo Mitsui Bank
President and CEO Takeshi Kunibe

Corporate Office:
1-1-2, Marunouchi, Chiyoda-ku
Tokyo, Japan
Phone: 81-3-3282-8111

U.S. Office:
277 Park Avenue
New York, NY 10172
Phone: 212-224-4000

Royal Bank of Canada
CEO David I. McKay

CEO and Board Communications:
Paul French
Phone: 416-974-3718

Corporate Media Relations:
Catherine Hudon
Phone: 416-974-5506

Corporate Address:
200 Bay Street P.O. Box 1
Royal Bank Plaza
Toronto, Canada
Phone: 416-974-5151 and 416-842-2000

CEO Sergio Ermotti

Head Group External Communications:
Mark Hengel
Phone: 41-44-234-32-21
Chief Communication Officer-Americas:
Marsha Askins
Phone: 212-713-6151 office and 917-226-4743 cell

Corporate Office:
Bahnhofstrasse 45, CH-8098
8001 Zurich, Switzerland
Phone: 41-44-234-11-11

U.S. Office:
1285 Avenue of the Americas
New York, NY 10019
Phone: 212-713-2000

Goldman Sachs
Chairman and CEO Lloyd C. Blankfein
Phone: 917-743-0939 and 212-902-0593

Media Contacts Americas:
Phone: 212-902-5400

Corporate Address:
Goldman, Sachs & Co.
200 West Street
New York, NY 10282
Phone: 212-902-1000

Morgan Stanley
CEO James P. Gorman
Phone: 212-761-4000

Corporate Office:
Morgan Stanley
1585 Broadway
New York, NY 10036
Phone: 212-761-4000

Community Trust Bank
Chairman, President, and CEO Jean R. Hale
Senior Vice President, Investments:
Christopher Meng
Phone: 859-389-5300
Corporate Office:
346 N Mayo Trail
Pikeville, KY 41501
Phone: 606-432-1414

Chairman Douglas Flint Group Chief Executive Stuart Gulliver

Corporate Office:
8 Canada Square
London E14 5HQ, United Kingdom
Phone: 44-20-7991-8888

U.S. Office:
HSBC Headquarters
425 5th Avenue
New York, NY 10018
Phone: 212-525-5600

Head of Media Relations, HSBC USA:
Rob Sherman
Phone: 212-525-6901
The information compiled here is from the latest information reported by the banks. If there are corrections or additions that we should consider, please let us know.

See also: Ea O Ka Aina: NoDAPL demo at Enbridge Inc 9/29/16
Ea O Ka Aina: Militarized Police raid NoDAPL 9/28/16
Ea O Ka Aina: Stop funding of Dakota Access Pipeline 9/27/16
Ea O Ka Aina: UN experts to US, "Stop DAPL Now!" 9/27/16
Ea O Ka Aina: No DAPL solidarity grows 9/21/16
Ea O Ka Aina: This is how we should be living 9/16/16
Ea O Ka Aina: 'Natural Capital' replacing 'Nature' 9/14/16
Ea O Ka Aina: The Big Difference at Standing Rock 9/13/16
Ea O Ka Aina: Jill Stein joins Standing Rock Sioux 9/10/16
Ea O Ka Aina: Pipeline temporarily halted 9/6/16
Ea O Ka Aina: Native Americans attacked with dogs 9/5/16
Ea O Ka Aina: Mni Wiconi! Water is Life! 9/3/16
Ea O Ka Aina: Sioux can stop the Pipeline 8/28/16
Ea O Ka Aina: Officials cut water to Sioux 8/23/16 


NoDAPL demo at Enbridge Inc

SUBHEAD: Protesters against the Dakota Access Pipe Line occupy office of company participating in construction. 

By Staff on 29 September 2016 for Unicorn Riot -

Image above: Demonstrators offer "Embridge Lemonade" (actually cups of black oil) to employees of the company backing the Dakota Access Pipe Line at their Edina, Minnesota headquarters. Frame from video below in original article.
"Enbridge, Inc. is an energy delivery company based in Calgary, Canada. It focuses on the transportation, distribution and generation of energy, primarily in North America. As a transporter of energy, Enbridge operates in Canada and the United States, the longest crude oil and liquid hydrocarbons transportation system in the world."
From "Our Company Overview". Retrieved 16 August 2015.
On September 29th, in Edina, Minnesota, community members and water protectors staged an action at Enbridge Gas Company's Edina office in solidarity with resistance efforts against the Dakota Access pipeline (DAPL).

Attendees of the action were let into the lobby by an Enbridge Inc employee. Signs and handouts containing a declaration against Enbridge and Dakota Access accompanied an “Enbridge lemonade stand”, from which cups of “oil” were offered to Enbridge employees.

The declaration identified Enbridge, Inc. as the single largest financial contributor to the DAPL project. It also stated the intention of the people of Minnesota to continue to expose Enbridge’s irresponsible and exploitative business ventures, including the proposed Line 3 in Minnesota.

While some attendees chanted “You Can’t Drink Oil” and “Love Water, Not Oil”, others approached every Enbridge employee in the mostly-vacant office. Each employee was given a copy of the Declaration, and asked if they wanted to drink a cup of oil.

Video above: Demonstration against NoDAPL at the Edina Inc, Minnesota headquarters. From (

Enbridge is the largest single financial contributor the Dakota Access Pipeline project, which violates multiple federal laws and precedents, including:
• The Fort Laramie Treaty of 1868, by damaging the treaty land of the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe and posing a devastating risk to their drinking water;

• The Executive Order on Environmental Justice, by disproportionately impacting the tribal community;

• The Pipeline Safety Act and Clean Water Act, by refusing to correctly identify the Missouri River crossing as 'high consequence' or produce an adequate emergency spill plan;

• The National Environmental Policy Act by evading federal review and neglecting to complete a full Environmental Impact Statement;

• The Executive Order on the Protection of Sacred Sites, by knowingly jeopardizing historical ceremony sites and burial grounds in the immediate vicinity of the pipeline route;

• And President Obama's Keystone Climate Test, by blatantly disregarding the associated greenhouse gas emissions and ensuing contribution to the climate crisis.
It is unconscionable that Enbridge continue funding this illegal and dangerous pipeline. Today, we stand with our friends at the Sacred Stone Camp in resisting the Dakota Access Pipeline, and we will continue the fight against the proposed Line 3 here in Minnesota. We proved that Sandpiper was a bad investment, and so is Line 3.

The people of Minnesota will continue to expose Enbridge's exploitative and irresponsible business investments until they cease endangering the our water, lands, and communities.

See also:
Ea O Ka Aina: Militarized Police raid NoDAPL 9/28/16
Ea O Ka Aina: Stop funding of Dakota Access Pipeline 9/27/16
Ea O Ka Aina: UN experts to US, "Stop DAPL Now!" 9/27/16
Ea O Ka Aina: No DAPL solidarity grows 9/21/16
Ea O Ka Aina: This is how we should be living 9/16/16
Ea O Ka Aina: 'Natural Capital' replacing 'Nature' 9/14/16
Ea O Ka Aina: The Big Difference at Standing Rock 9/13/16
Ea O Ka Aina: Jill Stein joins Standing Rock Sioux 9/10/16
Ea O Ka Aina: Pipeline temporarily halted 9/6/16
Ea O Ka Aina: Native Americans attacked with dogs 9/5/16
Ea O Ka Aina: Mni Wiconi! Water is Life! 9/3/16
Ea O Ka Aina: Sioux can stop the Pipeline 8/28/16
Ea O Ka Aina: Officials cut water to Sioux 8/23/16 


CO2 passes 400 parts per million

SUBHEAD: Point of no Return - Carbon dioxide output will not drop below 400ppm in our lifetimes.

By Nadia Prupis on 30 September 2016 for Common Dreams -

Image above: Mountain top removal - Coal strip mining operations work around the clock at amazing speed; this lonely stand of trees disappeared in barely a day. The small bulldozer on the upper level pushes loose material down to the loader, which scoops it up into the next earth mover in line which will dump it into a nearby "valley fill," burying the stream there. From (

September's carbon dioxide output failed to drop below 400 parts per million (ppm) despite historically being the year's low point for CO2 emissions, which means the Earth has very likely passed that symbolic climate threshold forever.

The Earth has hit 400ppm before, but seasonal cycles have always reduced carbon dioxide output back below that level. Now, climate scientists say it is "almost impossible" that will ever happen again.
According to Climate Central:
September is usually the month when carbon dioxide is at its lowest after a summer of plants growing and sucking it up in the northern hemisphere. As fall wears on, those plants lose their leaves, which in turn decompose, releasing the stored carbon dioxide back into the atmosphere. At Mauna Loa Observatory, the world's marquee site for monitoring carbon dioxide, there are signs that the process has begun but levels have remained above 400 ppm.
"Is it possible that October 2016 will yield a lower monthly value than September and dip below 400 ppm? Almost impossible," scientist Ralph Keeling, who runs the carbon dioxide monitoring program at the Scripps Institute for Oceanography, wrote in a blog post this week.

"Brief excursions towards lower values are still possible but it already seems safe to conclude that we won't be seeing a monthly value below 400 ppm this year—or ever again for the indefinite future."
Climate Central continues:
We may get a day or two reprieve in the next month, similar to August when Tropical Storm Madeline blew by Hawaii and knocked carbon dioxide below 400 ppm for a day. But otherwise, we're living in a 400 ppm world. Even if the world stopped emitting carbon dioxide tomorrow, what has already put in the atmosphere will linger for many decades to come.
"At best (in that scenario), one might expect a balance in the near term and so CO2 levels probably wouldn't change much—but would start to fall off in a decade or so," Gavin Schmidt, NASA's chief climate scientist, said in an email. "In my opinion, we won't ever see a month below 400 ppm."
The confirmation comes soon after a report from the U.K. Met Office in June warned that the planet was well on its way toward that grim milestone as the impact from rising fossil fuel emissions was worsened by a turbulent El Niño event. Similar predictions came in May as climate scientists cautioned the limit could be hit at any time.

Another recent report also found that the planet could pass another point of no return—the agreed-upon 1.5°C warming threshold—in a decade.

See also:
Ea O Ka Aina: Too Little - Too Late 12/23/15
At COP21 the world’s nations tried to limit the rate at which the greenhouse gases will increase in the future.


China's suicidal food strategy

SUBHEAD: Their $450 billion farm plan will determine our fate - namely depending on GMO's and Big Ag.

By Nathaniel Johnson on 30 September 2016 for Grist -

Image above: Woman carrying fertilizer to field in traditional rural China. From original article.

[IB Publisher's note: If this article is correct, we think this is exactly the wrong strategy going forward. Expanding the use of artificial fertilizer, pesticides, GMO monoculture, heavy fossil fuel ag equipment, large scale farm dependency will result in ecosystem disaster and more global warming. The Chinese have spent for than a generation moving people from small low-tech self sufficient rural farming areas to polluted urban manufacturing centers. The Chinese have bought Syngenta to "catch up" with America's GMO powered suicidal race to the bottom.]
Four hundred and fifty billion dollars. That’s the amount of money Chinese officials recently announced they would invest to improve the country’s farms over the next four years.

That isn’t just a big number — it’s a redonkulously humongous number. Compare it to the new $3 billion Chan Zuckerberg Initiative (that’s Zuckerberg of Facebook wealth and fame) that aims to treat or prevent all diseases by 2100. Or the record $4.6 billion that U.S. investors crowed about pouring into ag startups last year.

Take those massive efforts and multiply them 100-fold, and then we’re in the same range as this proposed Chinese investment.

The Agricultural Development Bank of China has created a fund to loan out at least that much money by 2020, according to state media. Experts that I talked to are skeptical — China has announced it would spend big money before and followed through with just a fraction — but even a fraction of $450 billion could be transformative.

China’s choices, not to put too fine a point on it, will determine the fate of the world. If China were to follow the same path as the United States and Europe, by using inefficient fossil fuels to lift its 1.3 billion people to a comfortable standard of living, it could be pumping 30 gigatons of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere by 2030 — that’s three times as much as the whole world emits now.

As the country feeding the largest population in the world, China’s policies on fertilizer use, genetically modified seed research, and agricultural regulations will matter to us all.

So where will all that money go, and what impact could it have on sustainability? I asked some experts on China ag policy for their theories.

Geopolitical strategists have long understood that the stability of a nation depends on its ability to keep its citizens fed: Military might depends on agricultural might, hence the old saying, “an army marches on its stomach.”

Historically, China has tried grow enough grain to feed itself, but it has scaled back its self-sufficiency goals and, in the last decade, the country has allowed food imports to surge in.

But it’s been trying to mount a counteroffensive on a different front, buying farmland and agribusinesses in other countries (like the pork company Smithfield from the United States).

Some of these newly announced loans could finance further expansion abroad. But recent signals from Chinese officials suggest they are focused less on controlling land these days, and more on controlling seeds.

Last year, the Chinese government announced its intentions to become a leader in the genetically engineered crop market. “We cannot lag behind others in the GMO research. Our GMO market should not be saturated by foreign brands,” said agriculture official Han Jun.

China sees control of its food as a matter of national security, said Scott Rozelle, who studies Chinese agricultural policy at Stanford. And it’s hard to control your food if you rely on foreign countries for your seed.

The world got a major hint that China has been trying to catch up with American seed companies in 2012, when the FBI caught three men trying to smuggle corn kernels from Iowa fields into China.

As journalist Ted Genoways wrote in his telling of the story: “The Department of Justice maintains that China is quietly permitting and even encouraging companies to steal American agricultural secrets right out of the ground.”

Then this year, the China National Chemical Corporation sought to gain a foothold in the seed industry by paying $43 billion to purchase the Swiss seed company Syngenta. That acquisition might be part of the $450 billion pot, said Elizabeth Economy, a China expert at the Council on Foreign Relations.

China says it can produce more food and reduce the environmental pressure of farming by breeding better seeds. One of the chief complaints of the anti-GMO movement is that the food system is increasingly controlled by a few profit-driven companies.

It’ll be interesting to see what a communist GM seed company — that is, a company primarily beholden to government interests rather than shareholder profits — engineers.

There may not be many more huge dams or long irrigation canals to be built in China, Rozelle said, but there are several ways in which the country could bring its farming practices up to date.
“They recognize that their agriculture is enormously inefficient, and they want to fix that,” Economy said.

The primary inefficiency is the amount of fertilizer that Chinese farmers use — more than twice as much as their U.S. counterparts. That fertilizer washes off the fields and pollutes waterways. It turns into nitrous oxide gas and warms the earth.

Most significantly, it takes lots energy to make nitrogen fertilizer. Improving fertilizer efficiency could reduce China’s total carbon emissions by as much as 6 percent, according to one study. That’s much as all the emissions from Switzerland. Six percent matters when, as Ben Adler points out, we get excited by a 1-2 percent decline in emissions.

China is moving quickly from a system of growing a few head of livestock at a time in backyards to concentrated animal feeding operations. CAFOs may be big and stinky, but when you are raising twice as many pigs as there are Americans, you need to capture their poop and keep it from running into the rivers.

We’ve seen disgusting examples of CAFO manure lagoons rupturing into rivers here in the United States, but those catastrophes are nothing compared to the pollution catastrophe that you’d have if there were no attempt to control the feces.

If you look at the amount of fertilizers and pesticides to feed each person, U.S. farms were dirtiest in the mid 1970s, and they’ve been improving since then. By spending this money, China potentially could jump past our dirtiest phase.

This announcement also could be a nod to people living in the countryside. “President Xi Jinping has long been accused of completely neglecting rural China,” Rozelle said. The government may be seeking to show that it has money for rural areas by announcing this massive agricultural loan package.

That might not be the best approach if China really wants to increase rural incomes and clean up the environment, according to Economy. “China will often look to technology as a cure-all,” she said.


Morgan Freeman supports bees

SOURCE: Katherine Muzik PHD (
SUBHEAD: Actor converts his 124 acre Mississippi ranch into a giant sanctuary for wild bees.

By Kate DiStacio on 30 September 2016 for Inhabitat -

Image above: Morgan Freeman on Tonight Show shortly after becoming a beekeeper. From original article.

Morgan Freeman has played so many roles during his long Hollywood career it’s difficult to keep track, but his newest role may prove to be his most important. The actor has turned his 124-acre Mississippi ranch into a sanctuary for wild bees, in an effort to help support population growth for the little pollinators.

Freeman started beekeeping in 2014 with 26 hives of buzzing babies, and he explained that tons of bee-friendly plants have been planted on his property.

Back in 2014, Freeman talked to Jimmy Fallon about his new hobby during an appearance on “The Tonight Show.”

Having taken up beekeeping just two weeks prior to the interview, the actor described how well he and his bees get along. The actor told Fallon that he doesn’t even need to wear a protective beekeeper’s suit or veil when tending to his precious pollinators, suggesting that he has reached a level of skill and ease akin to his on-screen performances.

Freeman didn’t start keeping bees because of a sweet tooth, but rather as a direct response to the mass bee die-offs that have been threatening the survival of wild bees for the past several years. The actor recognized the opportunity to make a difference through personal action, so he imported 26 hives full of bees from Arkansas and started feeding them sugar water.

Freeman said he doesn’t wear the beekeeper’s hat and veil because the bees do not sting him, joking that the protective gear is “for people who can’t resonate” with the bees. When Fallon suggested Freeman had become “at one with the bees,” the actor couldn’t help but agree.

It’s difficult to measure what kind of an impact Freeman’s efforts may have on the larger bee populations in North America, but his hobby is an inspiring gesture of goodwill toward those tiny living creatures that are often taken for granted.

See also:
Ea O Ka Aina: Bayer &  Syngenta Poisoning Bees 9/22/16


Militarized police raid NoDAPL

SUBHEAD: Sioux say that "with state police protecting Dakota Access Pipeline that Obama's words are meaningless."

By Lauren McCauley on 29 September 2016 for Common Dreams -

Image above: "Roughly 150 peaceful Water Protectors gathered for prayer near construction sites of the Dakota Access Pipeline...and were met with a heavy show of force by authorities." said Rob Wilson, the photographer. From original article.

Twenty-one water protectors were arrested in North Dakota on Wednesday after a military-style raid interrupted a peaceful prayer ceremony at a Dakota Access Pipeline (DAPL) construction site.

Hundreds of demonstrators have been taking part in the prayer ceremony in recent days, according to the Red Warrior Camp, traveling to sacred sites that are being threatened by the pipeline construction, beginning Tuesday with the ancestral site where private security guards unleashed attack dogs on unarmed protesters earlier this month.

Construction was halted Tuesday as a result of the peaceful demonstration. On Wednesday, police helicopters and a circling crop-duster followed the caravan of cars south of Mandan, North Dakota.

Image above: Police with military automatic assault rifles stand near Mrap vehicle of the kind of bomb proof vehicle developed to fight "terrorists" in Iraq and Afghanistan now in use by US domestic police forces. From video by UnicornRiot.Ninja.

According to the independent journalism outfit Unicorn Riot, which has been reporting live on the Dakota Access protest from the camps, after praying at the second site, "a large amount of police vehicles arrived and blockaded the only exit on the public road leading to the DAPL work site."
Unicorn Riot continued:
Dozens of militarized police with shotguns appeared with a Bearcat armored vehicle as well as a [Mine-Resistant Ambush Protected vehicle, also known as an MRAP]. The Bearcat was also brought out by police at yesterday’s action, but the MRAP, a larger tan colored armored vehicle, had not been seen at any DAPL sites until today.
After blockading the exit points, police vehicles sped across open fields towards the crowd of protectors as they left the site. Several arrests were made, as police brandished loaded shotguns, and assault rifles. The latest information we gathered is that there were up to 21 arrests.
The Sacred Stone Camp has started a legal defense fund to support those arrested and others involved in the direct action campaign.

Though images and videos of the raid were shared widely on social media, as others noted, there was no corporate media coverage of the arrests.

Video above: Water Protectors pray at construction site, met with Police armor and automatic weapons. From UnicornRiot.Ninja (

See also:
Ea O Ka Aina: Stop funding of Dakota Access Pipeline 9/27/16
Ea O Ka Aina: UN experts to US, "Stop DAPL Now!" 9/27/16
Ea O Ka Aina: No DAPL solidarity grows 9/21/16
Ea O Ka Aina: This is how we should be living 9/16/16
Ea O Ka Aina: 'Natural Capital' replacing 'Nature' 9/14/16
Ea O Ka Aina: The Big Difference at Standing Rock 9/13/16
Ea O Ka Aina: Jill Stein joins Standing Rock Sioux 9/10/16
Ea O Ka Aina: Pipeline temporarily halted 9/6/16
Ea O Ka Aina: Native Americans attacked with dogs 9/5/16
Ea O Ka Aina: Mni Wiconi! Water is Life! 9/3/16
Ea O Ka Aina: Sioux can stop the Pipeline 8/28/16
Ea O Ka Aina: Officials cut water to Sioux 8/23/16 

'Non-GMO' labels not strong enough

SUBHEAD: Non-GMO labels only speaks to genetic modification and does not address dangers of glyphosate.

By J. Cardonna and T. Vrain on 29 September 2016 for Resilience -

Image above: Pesticide sprayer in wheat field. Many food crops, particularly grains, are sprayed to death with glyphsate to dry them and make them easier to harvest. Only "organic" products are guaranteed free of genetic modification and pesticides. From (

The total sale of products with ‘Non-GMO’ labeling is now in the billions, and the growth of this market is certainly to be applauded. However, the Non-GMO label inadvertently shields health-conscious consumers from one of the scarier realities of the modern food system—that glyphosate, which is the main ingredient in the herbicide Roundup, is also being applied to non genetically modified crops.

The world now has 500 million acres of GMO crops, mainly soy and corn in North and South America, but also cotton in the US, China, and India, and canola, sugar beet, and alfalfa in the US and Canada.

These crops are genetically modified to withstand the application of glyphosate, in the form of Roundup—hence the label “Roundup Ready” crops. Glyphosate is a synthetic amino acid, a glycine analog that kills all plants except for the crop engineered with a bacterial gene that provides resistance to the herbicide.

Numerous scientific studies since 2009 have shown that glyphosate inactivates detoxification enzymes, disrupts the endocrine system, damages the microbiome and immune system, and is carcinogenic. The symptoms of the many chronic diseases that have reached epidemic proportions in the last 20 years can be explained by glyphosate’s (mis)incorporation as a synthetic amino acid in all our proteins (Samsel and Seneff 2016).

That is, glyphosate accumulates in all human organs, including breast milk (Kruger 2014). The public is increasingly concerned about this reality, which is why foods labeled ‘Organic’ (free of both GMOs and glyphosate) and ‘Non-GMO’ continue to grow in market share.

It is also on the basis of these studies that the World Health Organization (2015) and the State of California (2016) recently listed glyphosate as a “carcinogen,” and many European countries that already tightly regulate glyphosate, finally banned Roundup as an over-the-counter weed killer. On Vancouver Island, where we both reside, the municipalities of Victoria, Esquimalt, and Saanich have also banned the “general use” of Roundup.

What is less well known is that glyphosate is also being used as a “desiccant” on crops that are not genetically modified.  At present, there are no GM cereal grains on the market, and thus crops such as wheat and barley cannot survive a dousing of glyphosate.

But since the turn of the 21st century, the USDA and Agriculture Canada have encouraged farmers to spray glyphosate onto grains and seed crops, in an effort to preemptively kill and dry out the crop prior to harvesting, to facilitate processing. This process is called “chemical drying” or “desiccation.” Glyphosate also kills the weeds around the crop, making it a convenient pre-harvest technique.

The Non-GMO label does not currently address the reality that products carrying the Non-GMO label contain conventional cereal grains that were doused with glyphosate. That is, many non GMO crops have glyphosate residues in them. This should be a major public concern and one that needs to be addressed legislatively.

There have been dozens of peer-reviewed studies on glyphosate in recent years, but the only one that has been widely publicized is from France (Seralini 2014).

A top French court recently upheld its findings, which showed that Roundup Ready corn (sprayed with glyphosate) is clearly harmful to lab rats. The bulk of the results suggest that it is glyphosate that is the toxic agent—a point that is somewhat missed by ‘Non-GMO’ labeling.

In light of these facts, we urge the Non-GMO Project to take stock of this ambiguity and add ‘Glyphosate-Free’ to its label—for products that are, in fact, free of glyphosate. Short of such a development, the only certain way for consumers to avoid harmful dosages of glyphosate is to buy or grow organic foods.

Not only is glyphosate still legal in the US and Canada, but Agriculture Canada and the EPA recently raised the “safe” levels of glyphosate concentrations in human food and animal feed, in denial and defiance of the studies cited below. The reason for the change comes from industry pressure, since glyphosate concentrations are, on the whole, rising in our food—a fact that has not received enough public attention.

Consumers have a right to know what foods are contaminated and what they are putting into their bodies, and the best solution is to have clear labeling and well-informed consumers.

The regulation and labeling of GM foods is a good start, but we need to pay more attention to the toxic herbicides that most GMOs are modified to withstand. The European model of banning glyphosate on all food crops—whether genetically modified or not—should be adopted in North and South America.

Although this short article focuses on the adverse health effects of glyphosate, it is important to understand that there are many interrelated reasons to reject GMOs, and many ways of approaching the issue. Below is a short summary of the problems as we see them.
  1. Non-science?
    Although the defenders of GMOs frame the topic as a debate between science and non-science, the reality is that numerous peer-reviewed scientific studies (cited below) have attested to the dangers of glyphosate, to other ingredients in Roundup, and to at least some GMOs. The science can be contradictory on the matter, but what’s striking is that the independent, non-industry-backed studies are inevitably the ones that find glyphosate toxic, whereas the industry-backed studies tend to find the opposite.

  2.  Human health.
    The peer-reviewed studies cited below demonstrate quite conclusively that glyphosate induces oxidative stress, disrupts the endocrine system, functions as a strong antibiotic that damages animal (and human) health, and is a carcinogen, conclusive enough to the WHO, much of Europe, and the State of California.

  3. Ecological destruction.
    Although it is possible to have conventional, industrial-scale monocultures without GMOs, GMOs are overwhelmingly grown at the industrial scale and in monocultures. They form part of the destructive agricultural system that has depleted soils in North America and elsewhere, and toxified the environment through the increased usage of the herbicide/antibiotic Roundup.

  4. Decline of biological diversity, lack of resilience.
    GMOs lack genetic diversity and are generally grown in monolithic blocks of a single crop. This lack of diversity creates vulnerabilities in the food supply and decreases resilience in the face of pests. Crops with low levels of diversity are more susceptible to disease and infestations. This state of affairs triggers a vicious cycle in which human beings wage a pointless arms race with weeds and pests and increase the use of chemical fertilizers to compensate for fragile plants, the adaptation of weeds and pests, and the absence of natural forms of fertility.

  5.  Privatization of genetic material.
    This fact is often ignored in the great debate on GMOs. When farmers purchase seeds, they purchase the ability to grow those seeds and harvest its crop. Farmers must sign a contract that prevents them from saving seeds. Thus, in a sense, farmers are growing someone else’s seeds, as the entire seed industry has now become controlled by only a handful of corporations. Seed-saving is an ancient practice, and one that fosters self-sufficiency, resilience, and biological diversity, and it has now been greatly impaired by the privatization of genetic material. This dead-end farming that makes farmers ever more reliant on corporations first began with the development of hybridized seeds – well before GMOs – which generally produced non-viable seeds and thus forced farmers to re-purchase seeds on a yearly basis. This practice then passed to GMOs. In a sense, the GMO farmer has become a modern-day sharecropper, growing someone else’s crops.

  6. Culture of secrecy. Although GMO labeling exists in 64 countries, mainly in EU member states, the US and Canada have succumbed to industry pressure and still function without such laws. Further, the practice of chemical drying has taken place since 2000 with virtually no public consultation, consent, or transparency. There is ample reason to regulate glyphosate out of existence, as many countries and municipalities have begun to do, but until sweeping legislation occurs in North America, clear labeling on products that carry GMOs and glyphosate needs to exist, so that consumers can make well-informed decisions about what chemicals they are putting into their bodies. Governments should also foster public input before enacting policies that relate to GMOs and glyphosate.
Dr. Jeremy L. Caradonna
 Environmental Studies University of Victoria

Dr. Thierry Vrain
Head of Biotechnology at Agriculture Canada’s
Summerland Research Station (retired)

A Note on References
Given the immense interest in and suspicion of GMOS, we feel it is necessary for the public to have access to the scientific, peer-reviewed studies that address the adverse health effects of glyphosate. The studies below all appeared in highly respected, mainstream scientific journals that offer the latest research on toxicology, chemistry, microbiology, and more. We strongly encourage readers to take the time to read at least some of these technical studies.

References Cited in the Article
Samsel and Seneff 2013 Glyphosate’s Suppression of Cytochrome P450 Enzymes and Amino Acid Biosynthesis by the Gut Microbiome: Pathways to Modern Diseases Entropy 2013, 15(4), 1416-1463

Samsel and Seneff 2016. Glyphosate pathways to modern diseases V: Amino acid analogue of glycine in diverse proteins. Journal of Biological Physics and Chemistry · June 2016
Swanson et al 2014 Genetically engineered crops, glyphosate and the deterioration of Health in the United states of America. Journal of Organic Systems Vol.9 No.2 (2014)

Thongprakaisang et al 2013 Glyphosate induces human breast cancer cells growth via estrogen receptors. Food Chem Toxicol. Sep;59:129-36.

Krüger et al 2014. Detection of Glyphosate Residues in Animals and Humans. J Environ Anal Toxicol, 4(210), 2161-0525.

Séralini et al 2014 Republished study: long-term toxicity of a Roundup herbicide and a Roundup-tolerant genetically modified maize. Environmental Sciences Europe , 26:14

Additional References on Glyphosate in Animal Health
Ackermann W, Coenen M, Schrödl W, Shehata AA, Krüger M. (2014) The Influence of Glyphosate on the Microbiota and Production of Botulinum Neurotoxin During Ruminal Fermentation. Curr Microbiol. 2014 Nov 19.

Adam A, Marzuki A, Abdul Rahman H, Abdul Aziz M. (1997)The oral and intratracheal toxicities of ROUNDUP and its components to
rats. Vet Hum Toxicol. Jun;39(3):147-51.

Astiz M, de Alaniz MJ, Marra CA. (2009) Effect of pesticides on cell survival in liver and brain rat tissues. Ecotoxicol Environ Saf. Oct;72(7):2025-32.

Astiz M, Hurtado de Catalfo GE, García MN, Galletti SM, Errecalde AL, de Alaniz MJ, Marra CA. (2013) Pesticide-induced decrease in rat testicular steroidogenesis is differentially prevented by lipoate and tocopherol. Ecotoxicol Environ Saf. May;91:129-38.

Astiz M, de Alaniz MJ, Marra CA. (2012) The oxidative damage and inflammation caused by pesticides are reverted by lipoic acid in rat brain. Neurochem Int. Dec;61(7):1231-41.

Benachour N, Sipahutar H, Moslemi S, Gasnier C, Travert C, Séralini GE. (2007) Time- and dose-dependent effects of roundup on human embryonic and placental cells. Arch Environ Contam Toxicol. Jul;53(1):126-33

Benachour N, Séralini GE. (2009) Glyphosate formulations induce apoptosis and necrosis in human umbilical, embryonic, and placental cells. Chem Res Toxicol. Jan;22(1):97-105.

Benedetti AL, Vituri CdL, Trentin AG, Domingues MA, Alvarez- Silva M. (2004) The effects of sub-chronic exposure of Wistar rats to the herbicide Glyphosate-Biocarb. Toxicol Lett. 153(2): 227–232.

Cecilia Judith Beuret, Fanny Zirulnik, María Sofía Giménez (2005) Effect of the herbicide glyphosate on liver lipoperoxidation in pregnant rats and their fetuses. Reproductive Toxicology Volume 19, Issue 4, March–April, Pages 501–504

Chaufan G, Coalova I, Molina Mdel C. (2014) Glyphosate commercial formulation causes cytotoxicity, oxidative effects, and apoptosis on human cells: differences with its active ingredient. Int J Toxicol. 2014 Jan;33(1):29 - 38.

Cassault-Meyer, Steeve Gress, Gilles-Éric Séralini, Isabelle Galeraud-Denis (2014) An acute exposure to glyphosate-based herbicide alters aromatase levels in testis and sperm nuclear quality Environmental Toxicology and Pharmacology Volume 38, Issue 1, July, Pages 131–140
Magdalena Chłopecka, Marta Mendel, Natalia Dziekan, Wojciech Karlik (2014) Glyphosate affects the spontaneous motoric activity of intestine at very low doses – In vitro study. Pesticide Biochemistry and Physiology, Available online 24 June 2014

Clair E, Mesnage R, Travert C, Séralini GÉ. (2012) A glyphosate-based herbicide induces necrosis and apoptosis in mature rat testicular cells in vitro, and testosterone decrease at lower levels. Toxicol In Vitro. Mar;26(2):269-79.

Daiane Cattani, Vera Lúcia de Liz Oliveira Cavalli, Carla Elise Heinz Rieg, Juliana Tonietto Domingues, Tharine Dal-Cim, Carla Inês Tasca, Fátima Regina Mena Barreto Silva, Ariane Zamoner (2014) Mechanisms underlying the neurotoxicity induced by glyphosate-based herbicide in immature rat hippocampus: Involvement of glutamate excitotoxicity Toxicology 15 March

Elie-Caille C, Heu C, Guyon C, Nicod L. (2010) Morphological damages of a glyphosate-treated human keratinocyte cell line revealed by a micro- to nanoscale microscopic investigation. Cell Biol Toxicol. Aug;26(4):331-9.

Dallegrave E, Mantese FD, Coelho RS, Pereira JD, Dalsenter PR, Langeloh A. (2003) The teratogenic potential of the herbicide glyphosate-Roundup in Wistar rats. Toxicol Lett. Apr 30;142(1-2):45-52.

Dallegrave E, Mantese FD, Oliveira RT, Andrade AJ, Dalsenter PR, (2007) Pre- and postnatal toxicity of the commercial glyphosate formulation in Wistar rats. Arch Toxicol. Sep;81(9):665-73.

Daruich J, Zirulnik F, Gimenez MS. (2001) Effect of the herbicide glyphosate on enzymatic activity in pregnant rats and their fetuses. Environ Res. Mar;85(3):226-31.

de Liz Oliveira Cavalli VL, Cattani D, Heinz Rieg CE, Pierozan P, Zanatta L, Benedetti Parisotto E, Wilhelm Filho D, Mena Barreto Silva FR, Pessoa-Pureur R, Zamoner A. (2013) Roundup disrupts male reproductive functions by triggering calcium-mediated cell death in rat testis and Sertoli cells. Free Radic Biol Med. Jun 29;65C:335-346.

Gasnier C, Dumont C, Benachour N, Clair E, Chagnon MC, Séralini GE (2009) Glyphosate-based herbicides are toxic and endocrine disruptors in human cell lines. Toxicology. Aug 21;262(3):184-91

Gasnier C, Benachour N, Clair E, Travert C, Langlois F, Laurant C, Decroix-Laporte C, Séralini GE. (2010) Dig1 protects against cell death provoked by glyphosate-based herbicides in human liver cell lines. J Occup Med Toxicol. 2010 Oct 27;5:29

George, J., Prasad, S., Mahmood, Z., Shukla,Y. (2010) Studies on glyphosate induced carcinogenicity in mouse skin. A proteomic approach. J. of Proteomics 73,951964.

Steeve Gress, Sandrine Lemoine, Gilles-Eric Séralini, Paolo Emilio Puddu (2014) Glyphosate-Based Herbicides Potently Affect Cardiovascular System in Mammals: Review of the Literature. Cardiovascular Toxicology September 2014

Hietanen, E., Linnainmaa, K., Vainio, H. (1983) Effects of phenoxy herbicides and glyphosate on the hepatic and intestinal biotransformation activities in the rat. Acta Pharma et Toxicol 53,103-112.

Hokanson R, Fudge R, Chowdhary R, Busbee D. (2007) Alteration of estrogen-regulated gene expression in human cells induced by the agricultural and horticultural herbicide glyphosate. Hum Exp Toxicol. Sep;26(9):747-52.

Raquel Jasper, Gabriel Olivo Locatelli, Celso Pilati, and Claudriana Locatelli (2012) Evaluation of biochemical, hematological and oxidative parameters in mice exposed to the herbicide glyphosate-Roundup® Interdiscip Toxicol. 5(3): 133–140

Koller VJ, Fürhacker M, Nersesyan A, Mišík M, Eisenbauer M, Knasmueller S. (2012) Cytotoxic and DNA-damaging properties of glyphosate and Roundup in human-derived buccal epithelial cells. Arch Toxicol. May;86(5):805-13.

Krüger, M., Schledorn, P., Schrödl, W., Hoppe, H. W., & Lutz, W. (2014). Detection of Glyphosate Residues in Animals and Humans. J Environ Anal Toxicol, 4(210), 2161-0525.

Lioi MB, Scarfi MR, Santoro A, Barbieri R, Zeni O, Salvemini F, Di Berardino D, Ursini MV (1998) Cytogenetic damage and induction of pro-oxidant state in human lymphocytes exposed in vitro to glyphosate, vinclozolin, atrazine, and DPX-E9636. Environ Mol Mutagen. 32(1):39-

Martinez A, Reyes I, Reyes N (2007) Cytotoxicity of the herbicide glyphosate in human peripheral blood mononuclear cells. Biomedica. Dec;27(4):594-604.

Mesnage R, Bernay B, Séralini GE. (2012) Ethoxylated adjuvants of glyphosate-based herbicides are active principles of human cell toxicity. Toxicology. Sep 21. pii: S0300-483X(12)00345-9.

R. Mesnage, E. Clair, S. Gress, C. Then, A. Székács, G.-E. Séralini (2013) Cytotoxicity on human cells of Cry1Ab and Cry1Ac Bt insecticidal toxins alone or with a glyphosate-based herbicide Journal of Applied Toxicology Volume 33: 7, 695–699

Mariana, A.; de Alaniz, M. J.T. & Marra, C.A. (2009). The impact of simultaneous intoxication with agrochemicals on the antioxidant defense system in rat. Pesticide Biochemistry and Physiology, 94, 93-99.

Monroy CM, Cortés AC, Sicard DM, de Restrepo HG. (2005) [Cytotoxicity and genotoxicity of human cells exposed in vitro to glyphosate]. Biomedica. Sep;25(3):335-45.

Romano RM, Romano MA, Bernardi MM, Furtado PV, Oliveira CA. (2010) Prepubertal exposure to commercial formulation of the herbicide glyphosate alters testosterone levels and testicular morphology. Arch Toxicol. Apr;84(4):309-17.

Romano MA, Romano RM, Santos LD, Wisniewski P, Campos DA, de Souza PB, Viau P, Bernardi MM, Nunes MT, de Oliveira CA. (2012) Glyphosate impairs male offspring reproductive development by disrupting gonadotropin expression. Arch Toxicol. Apr;86(4):663-73.

Teresinha de Jesus C. Neiva; Ana Carolina R. Moraes; Rafaella SchwyzerI; Cidônia de Lourdes Vituri; Tania Rubia F. Rocha; Diana M. Fries; Márcio A. Silva; Aloisio Luiz Benedetti (2010) In vitro effect of the herbicide glyphosate on human blood platelet aggregation and coagulation Rev. Bras. Hematol. Hemoter. vol.32 no.4

Richard S, Moslemi S, Sipahutar H, Benachour N, Seralini GE. (2005) Differential effects of glyphosate and roundup on human placental cells and aromatase. Environ Health Perspect. Jun;113(6):716-20.

Wieland Schrödl, Susanne Krüger, Theodora Konstantinova-Müller, Awad A. Shehata, Ramon Rulff, Monika Krüger (2014) Possible Effects of Glyphosate on Mucorales Abundance in the Rumen of Dairy Cows in Germany. Current Microbiology, July 2014


Coming of the Post-Liberal Era

SUBHEAD: Clinton may still win the election, but the broader currents in American political life have changed.

By John Michael Greer on 28 September 2016 for the Archdruid Report -
Image above: A poster supporting American temperance from alcohol, a Liberal goal in the 19th century. It's labeled "The Drunkard's Progress - From the First Glass to the Grave". Click to enlarge. From (

One of the big challenges faced by any student of current events is that of seeing past the turmoil of the present moment to catch the deep trends shaping events on a broader scale.

It’s a little like standing on a beach, without benefit of tide tables, and trying to guess whether the tide’s coming in or going out.

Waves surge, break, and flow back out to sea; the wind blows this way and that; it takes time, and close attention to subtle details, before you can be sure whether the sea is gradually climbing the beach or just as gradually retreating from it.

Over the last year or so, though, it’s become increasingly clear to me that one of the great tides of American politics has turned and is flowing out to sea.

For almost precisely two hundred years, this country’s political discourse has been shaped—more powerfully, perhaps, than by any other single force—by the loose bundle of ideas, interests, and values we can call American liberalism. That’s the tide that’s turning.

The most important trends shaping the political landscape of our time, to my mind, are the descent of the liberal movement into its final decadence, and the first stirrings of the postliberal politics that is already emerging in its wake.

To make sense of what American liberalism has been, what it has become, and what will happen in its aftermath, history is an essential resource.

Ask a believer in a political ideology to define it, and you’ll get one set of canned talking points; ask an opponent of that ideology to do the same thing, and you’ll get another—and both of them will be shaped more by the demands of moment-by-moment politics than by any broader logic.

Trace that ideology from its birth through its adolescence, maturity, and decline into senescence, and you get a much better view of what it actually means.

Let’s go back, then, to the wellsprings of the American liberal movement. Historians have argued for a good long time about the deeper roots of that movement, but its first visible upsurge can be traced to a few urban centers in the coastal Northeast in the years just after the War of 1812.

Boston—nineteenth century America’s San Francisco—was the epicenter of the newborn movement, a bubbling cauldron of new social ideas to which aspiring intellectuals flocked from across the new Republic.

Any of my readers who think that the naive and effervescent idealism of the 1960s was anything new need to read Nathaniel Hawthorne’s The Blithedale Romance; it's set in the Massachusetts counterculture of the early nineteenth century, and most of the action takes place on a commune. That’s the context in which American liberalism was born.

From the very beginning, it was a movement of the educated elite.

Though it spoke movingly about uplifting the downtrodden, the downtrodden themselves were permitted very little active part in it. It was also as closely intertwined with Protestant Christianity as the movement of the 1960s was with Asian religions.

Ministers from the Congregationalist and Unitarian churches played a central role in the movement throughout its early years, and the major organizations of the movement—the Anti-Slavery Societies, the Temperance League, and the Non-Resistant League, the first influential American pacifist group—were closely allied with churches, and staffed and supported by clergymen.

Both the elitism and the Protestant Christian orientation, as we’ll see, had a powerful influence on the way American liberalism evolved over the two centuries that followed.

Three major social issues formed the framework around which the new movement coalesced.

The first was the abolition of slavery; the second was the prohibition of alcohol; the third was the improvement of the legal status of women. (The movement traversed a long and convoluted road before this latter goal took its ultimate form of legal and social equality between the genders.)

There were plenty of other issues that attracted their own share of attention from the movement—dietary reform, dress reform, pacifism, and the like—but all of them shared a common theme: the redefinition of politics as an expression of values.

Let’s take a moment to unpack that last phrase. Politics at that time, and at most other periods throughout human history, was understood as a straightforward matter of interests—in the bluntest of terms, who got what benefits and who paid what costs.

Then and for most of a century thereafter, for example, one of the things that happened in the wake of every Presidential election is that the winner’s party got to hand out federal jobs en masse to its supporters. It was called the “spoils system,” as in “to the victor belongs the spoils;” people flocked to campaign for this or that presidential candidate as much in the hope of getting a comfortable federal job as for anyother reason.

Nobody saw anything wrong with that system, because politics was about interests.

In the same way, there’s no evidence that anybody in the Constitutional Convention agonized about the ethical dimensions of the notorious provision that defined each slave as being 3/5ths of a person.

I doubt the ethical side of the matter ever crossed any of their minds, because politics was not about ethics or any other expression of values—it was about interests—and the issue was simply one of finding a compromise that allowed each state to feel that its interests would be adequately represented in Congress.

Values, in the thought of the time, belonged to church and to the private conscience of the individual; politics was about interests pure and simple.

(We probably need to stop here for a moment to deal with the standard response: “Yes, but they should have known better!” This is a classic example of chronocentrism.

Just as ethnocentrism privileges the beliefs, values, and interests of a particular ethnic group, chronocentrism does the same thing to the beliefs, values, and interests of a particular time.

Chronocentrism is enormously common today, on all sides of the political and cultural landscape; you can see it when scientists insist that people in the Middle Ages should have known better than to believe in astrology, for example, or when Christians insist that the old Pagans should have known better than to believe in polytheist religions. In every case, it’s simply one more attempt to evade the difficult task of understanding the past.)

Newborn American liberalism, though, rejected the division between politics and values. Their opposition to slavery, for example, had nothing to do with the divergent economic interests of the industrializing northern states and the plantation economy of the South, and everything to do with a devoutly held conviction that chattel slavery was morally wrong.

Their opposition to alcohol, to the laws that denied civil rights to women, to war, and to everything else on the lengthy shopping list of the movement had to do with moral values, not with interests. That’s where you see the impact of the movement’s Protestant heritage: it took values out of the church and tried to apply them to the world as a whole.

At the time, that was exotic enough that the moral crusades just mentioned got about as much political traction at the time as the colorful fantasies of the 1960s did in their own day.

Both movements were saved from complete failure by the impact of war. The movement of the 1960s drew most of its influence on popular culture from its opposition to the Vietnam War, which is why it collapsed nearly without a trace when the war ended and the draft was repealed. The earlier movement had to wait a while for its war, and in the meantime it very nearly destroyed itself by leaping on board the same kind of apocalyptic fantasy that kicked the New Age movement into its current death spiral four years ago.

In the late 1830s, frustrated by the failure of the perfect society to show up as quickly as they desired, a great many adherents of the new liberal movement embraced the prophecy of William Miller, a New England farmer who believed that he had worked out from the Bible the correct date of the Second Coming of Christ. When October 22, 1844 passed without incident, the same way December 21, 2012 did, the resulting “Great Disappointment” was a body blow to the movement.

By then, though, one of the moral crusades being pushed by American liberals had attracted the potent support of raw economic interest. The division between northern and southern states over the question of slavery was not primarily seen at the time as a matter of ethics; it was a matter of competing interests, like every other political question, though of course northern politicians and media were quick to capitalize on the moral rhetoric of the Abolitionists.

At issue was the shape of the nation’s economic future.

Was it going to be an agrarian society producing mostly raw materials for export, and fully integrated into a global economy centered on Britain—the southern model? Or was it going to go its own way, raise trade barriers against the global economy, and develop its own industrial and agricultural economy for domestic consumption—the northern model?

Such questions had immediate practical implications, because government policies that favored one model guaranteed the ruin of the other. Slavery was the linchpin of the Southern model, because the big southern plantations required a vast supply of labor at next to no cost to turn a profit, and so it became a core issue targeted by northern politicians and propagandists alike.

Read detailed accounts of the struggles in Congress between northern and southern politicians, though, and you’ll find that what was under debate had as much to do with trade policy and federal expenditures.

Was there to be free trade, which benefited the South, or trade barriers, which benefited the North? Was the federal budget to pay for canals and roads, which benefited northern interests by getting raw materials to factories and manufactured products to markets, but were irrelevant to southern interests, which simply needed riverboats to ship cotton and tobacco to the nearest seaport?

Even the bitter struggles over which newly admitted states were to have slave-based economies, and which were not, had an overwhelming economic context in the politics of the time.

The North wanted to see the western territories turned into a patchwork of family farms, producing agricultural products for the burgeoning cities of the eastern seaboard and the Great Lakes and buying manufactured goods from northern factories; the South wanted to see those same territories made available for plantations that would raise products for export to England and the world.

Yet the ethical dimension became central to northern propaganda, as already noted, and that helped spread the liberal conviction that values as well as interests had a place in the political dialogue.

By 1860, that conviction had become widespread enough that it shaped thinking south of the Mason-Dixon line. As originally written, for example, the first line of the Confederate song “The Bonny Blue Flag” ran “fighting for the property we won by honest toil”—and no one anywhere had any illusions about the identity, or skin color, of the property in question.

Before long, though, it was rewritten as “fighting for our liberty, with treasure, blood and toil.” The moment that change occurred, the South had already lost; it’s entirely possible to argue for slavery on grounds of economic interest, but once the focus of the conversation changes to values such as liberty, slavery becomes indefensible.

So the Civil War raged, the Confederacy rose and fell, the Northern economic model guided American economic policy for most of a century thereafter, and the liberal movement found its feet again.

With slavery abolished, the other two primary goals took center stage, and the struggle to outlaw alcohol and get voting rights for women proceeded very nearly in lockstep.

The 18th Amendment, prohibiting the manufacture and sale of alcohol in the US, and the 19th Amendment, granting women the right to vote, were passed in 1919 and 1920 respectively, and even though Prohibition turned out to be a total flop, the same rhetoric was redirected toward drugs (most were legal in the US until the 1930s) and continues to shape public policy today.

Then came the Great Depression, and with the election of Franklin Roosevelt in 1932—and above all with his landslide reelection victory in 1936, when the GOP carried only two states—the liberal movement became the dominant force in American political life.

Triumph after triumph followed. The legalization of unions, the establishment of a tax-funded social safety net, the forced desegregation of the South: these and a galaxy of other reforms on the liberal shopping list duly followed.

The remarkable thing is that all these achievements took place while the liberal movement was fighting opponents from both sides.

To the right, of course, old-fashioned conservatives still dug in their heels and fought for the interests that mattered to them, but from the 1930s on, liberals also faced constant challenge from further left.

American liberalism, as already mentioned, was a movement of the educated elite; it focused on helping the downtrodden rather than including them; and that approach increasingly ran into trouble as the downtrodden turned out to have ideas of their own that didn’t necessarily square with what liberals wanted to do for them.

Starting in the 1970s, in turn, American liberalism also ended up facing a third source of challenges—a new form of conservatism that borrowed the value-centered language of liberalism but used a different set of values to rally support to its cause: the values of conservative Protestant Christianity.

In some ways, the rise of the so-called “new conservatism” with its talk about “family values” represented the final, ironic triumph of the long struggle to put values at the center of political discourse.

By the 1980s, every political faction in American public life, no matter how crass and venial its behavior or its goals, took care to festoon itself with some suitable collection of abstract values. That’s still the case today; nobody talks about interests, even when interests are the obvious issue.

Thus you get the standard liberal response to criticism, which is to insist that the only reason anyone might possibly object to a liberal policy is because they have hateful values.

Let’s take current US immigration policy as an example. This limits the number of legal immigrants while tacitly allowing unlimited illegal immigration. There are solid pragmatic reasons for questioning the appropriateness of that policy.

The US today has the highest number of permanently unemployed people in its history, incomes and standards of living for the lower 80% of the population have been moving raggedly downward since the 1970s, and federal tax policies effectively subsidize the offshoring of jobs.

That being the case, allowing in millions of illegal immigrants who have, for all practical purposes, no legal rights, and can be employed at sweatshop wages in substandard conditions, can only drive wages down further than they’ve already gone, furthering the impoverishment and immiseration of wage-earning Americans.

These are valid issues, dealing with (among other things) serious humanitarian concerns for the welfare of wage-earning Americans, and they have nothing to do with racial issues—they would be just as compelling if the immigrants were coming from Canada.

Yet you can’t say any of this in the hearing of a modern American liberal. If you try, you can count on being shouted down and accused of being a racist.

Why? I’d like to suggest that it’s because the affluent classes from which the leadership of the liberal movement is drawn, and which set the tone for the movement as a whole, benefit directly from the collapse in wages that has partly been caused by mass illegal immigration, since that decrease in wages has yielded lower prices for the goods and services they buy and higher profits for the companies for which many of them work, and whose stocks many of them own.

That is to say, a movement that began its history with the insistence that values had a place in politics alongside interests has ended up using talk about values to silence discussion of the ways in which its members are pursuing their own interests.

That’s not a strategy with a long shelf life, because it doesn’t take long for the other side to identify, and then exploit, the gap between rhetoric and reality.

Ironies of this sort are anything but unusual in political history. It’s astonishingly common for a movement that starts off trying to overturn the status quo in the name of some idealistic abstraction or other to check its ideals at the door once it becomes the status quo.

If anything, American liberalism held onto its ideals longer than most and accomplished a great deal more than many, and I think that most of us—even those who, like me, are moderate Burkean conservatives—are grateful to the liberal movement of the past for ending such obvious abuses as chattel slavery and the denial of civil rights to women, and for championing the idea that values as well as interests deserve a voice in the public sphere.

It deserves the modern equivalent of a raised hat and a moment of silence, if no more, as it finally sinks into the decadence that is the ultimate fate of every successful political movement.

The current US presidential election shows, perhaps better than anything else, just how far that decadence has gone. Hillary Clinton’s campaign is floundering in the face of Trump’s challenge because so few Americans still believe that the liberal shibboleths in her campaign rhetoric mean anything at all.

Even among her supporters, enthusiasm is hard to find, and her campaign rallies have had embarrassingly sparse attendance.

Increasingly frantic claims that only racists, fascists, and other deplorables support Trump convince no one but true believers, and make the concealment of interests behind shopworn values increasingly transparent.

Clinton may still win the election by one means or another, but the broader currents in American political life have clearly changed course.

It’s possible to be more precise. Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump, in stark contrast to Clinton, have evoked extraordinarily passionate reactions from the voters, precisely because they’ve offered an alternative to a status quo pervaded by the rhetoric of a moribund liberalism.

In the same way, in Britain—where the liberal movement followed a somewhat different trajectory but has ended up in the same place—the success of the Brexit campaign and the wild enthusiasm with which Labour Party voters have backed the supposedly unelectable Jeremy Corbyn show that the same process is well under way there.

Having turned into the captive ideology of an affluent elite, liberalism has lost the loyalty of the downtrodden that once, with admittedly mixed motives, it set out to help. That’s a loss it’s unlikely to survive.

Over the decades ahead, in other words, we can expect the emergence of a postliberal politics in the United States, England, and quite possibly some other countries as well.

The shape of the political landscape in the short term is fairly easy to guess.

Watch the way the professional politicians in the Republican Party have flocked to Hillary Clinton’s banner, and you can see the genesis of a party of the affluent demanding the prolongation of free trade, American intervention in the Middle East, and the rest of the waning bipartisan consensus that supports its interests.

Listen to the roars of enthusiasm for Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump—or better still, talk to the not inconsiderable number of Sanders supporters who will be voting for Trump this November—and you can sense the emergence of a populist party seeking the abandonment of that consensus in defense of its very different interests.

What names those parties will have is by no means certain yet, and a vast number of other details still have to be worked out. One way or another, though, it’s going to be a wild ride.