Take Action Now - Amnesty International USA
Our Senators are on the verge of passing legislation -- the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA, S. 1253) -- with provisions that would essentially keep Guantanamo open indefinitely, despite President Obama's executive order to close it.
If that weren't bad enough, Senator Kelly Ayotte (R-NH) may introduce a provision that would bring back "enhanced interrogation techniques" -- which means torture.
The US Senate is poised to pass legislation containing provisions that would keep Guantanamo open, further entrenching indefinite detention and unfair trials. The Senate could vote at any time. To make matters worse, Senator Kelly Ayotte (R-NH) may introduce a provision that would enshrine “enhanced interrogation techniques”--that’s right, torture—in US law. The implications are staggering. We can’t let any of these provisions pass. Urge Senators Harry Reid (D-NV) and Carl Levin (D-MI), to use their influence to block any such provisions and take a stand for human rights and the rule of law.
Thursday
Council says Niagara Falls fracking plans threaten Toronto’s drinking water
NEWS: Council says Niagara Falls fracking plans threaten Toronto’s drinking water
The Toronto Star reports, “Toronto’s drinking water could be at risk due to a recent proposal to treat toxic waste at a plant on the New York side of Lake Ontario. The Niagara Falls Water Board is exploring the possibility of treating excess fluid from fracking in the Adirondacks. The chemical-laden liquid would be transported to an existing waste water plant (in Niagara Falls, New York) along the shores of Lake Ontario, home to an expansive ecosystem and the source of drinking water for more than 9 million people. …The Council of Canadians issued a letter to the board on Thursday, suggesting waste water facilities are rarely able to fully decontaminate fracking fluid.”
The CBC adds, “The Council of Canadians has written to the board, expressing concerns that fracking water will end up flowing into Lake Ontario via the Niagara River.
....Though not noted in this CBC new report, we know that Toronto mayor Rob Ford told the reporter that the proposed treatment of fracking fluids at the wastewater plant in Niagara Falls, NY would not affect Toronto because the Niagara River flows south away from Lake Ontario. Council of Canadians Great Lakes campaigner Emma Lui highlighted to the reporter that, in fact, the Niagara River flows north into Lake Ontario!
The Toronto Star reports, “Toronto’s drinking water could be at risk due to a recent proposal to treat toxic waste at a plant on the New York side of Lake Ontario. The Niagara Falls Water Board is exploring the possibility of treating excess fluid from fracking in the Adirondacks. The chemical-laden liquid would be transported to an existing waste water plant (in Niagara Falls, New York) along the shores of Lake Ontario, home to an expansive ecosystem and the source of drinking water for more than 9 million people. …The Council of Canadians issued a letter to the board on Thursday, suggesting waste water facilities are rarely able to fully decontaminate fracking fluid.”
The CBC adds, “The Council of Canadians has written to the board, expressing concerns that fracking water will end up flowing into Lake Ontario via the Niagara River.
....Though not noted in this CBC new report, we know that Toronto mayor Rob Ford told the reporter that the proposed treatment of fracking fluids at the wastewater plant in Niagara Falls, NY would not affect Toronto because the Niagara River flows south away from Lake Ontario. Council of Canadians Great Lakes campaigner Emma Lui highlighted to the reporter that, in fact, the Niagara River flows north into Lake Ontario!
Wednesday
Eight Nobel Peace Laureates call on Harper to take action on the tar sands
UPDATE: Eight Nobel Peace Laureates call on Harper to take action on the tar sands
“Eight Nobel Peace Laureates - including Archbishop Desmond Tutu (South Africa), Jody Williams (USA), President Ramos Horta (Timor) and Shirin Ebadi (Iran) - today sent a letter to Prime Minister Stephen Harper calling on him to ensure that Canada moves towards a clean energy future—and halts the expansion of the tar sands. …The letter comes two days after Canadians from across the country gathered on Parliament Hill in Ottawa to risk arrest in an act of nonviolent civil disobedience to protest the rapid expansion of the tar sands and Prime Minister Harper’s inaction on climate change. The Laureates recognize the power of peaceful civil disobedience in advancing many of the great moral challenges in human history.”
“Eight Nobel Peace Laureates - including Archbishop Desmond Tutu (South Africa), Jody Williams (USA), President Ramos Horta (Timor) and Shirin Ebadi (Iran) - today sent a letter to Prime Minister Stephen Harper calling on him to ensure that Canada moves towards a clean energy future—and halts the expansion of the tar sands. …The letter comes two days after Canadians from across the country gathered on Parliament Hill in Ottawa to risk arrest in an act of nonviolent civil disobedience to protest the rapid expansion of the tar sands and Prime Minister Harper’s inaction on climate change. The Laureates recognize the power of peaceful civil disobedience in advancing many of the great moral challenges in human history.”
Bolivia: Stop the Amazon Highway
Avaaz - Bolivia: Stop the Amazon Highway
On Sunday, Bolivian police used tear gas and truncheons to crack down on indigenous men, women and children who are marching against an illegal mega-highway that will slice through the protected Amazon rainforest.
72 hours later, the country is in crisis -- two key Ministers have resigned, Bolivians are erupting in street protests across the country, and President Evo Morales has been forced to temporarily suspend the highway construction. But powerful multinationals are already divvying up this important nature preserve. Now, only if the world stands with these brave indigenous people can we ensure the highway is rerouted and the forest is protected.
Avaaz just delivered a 115,000 strong Bolivian and Latin American emergency petition to two senior government Ministers -- they are worried about massive public pressure and are on the back foot. Now after this brutal violence let's ramp up the pressure and raise a global alarm to end the crackdown and stop the highway. Sign the urgent petition -- it will be delivered spectacularly to President Evo Morales when we reach 500,000.
On Sunday, Bolivian police used tear gas and truncheons to crack down on indigenous men, women and children who are marching against an illegal mega-highway that will slice through the protected Amazon rainforest.
72 hours later, the country is in crisis -- two key Ministers have resigned, Bolivians are erupting in street protests across the country, and President Evo Morales has been forced to temporarily suspend the highway construction. But powerful multinationals are already divvying up this important nature preserve. Now, only if the world stands with these brave indigenous people can we ensure the highway is rerouted and the forest is protected.
Avaaz just delivered a 115,000 strong Bolivian and Latin American emergency petition to two senior government Ministers -- they are worried about massive public pressure and are on the back foot. Now after this brutal violence let's ramp up the pressure and raise a global alarm to end the crackdown and stop the highway. Sign the urgent petition -- it will be delivered spectacularly to President Evo Morales when we reach 500,000.
Monday
Gordon Pinsent And The Oil Sands: Elder Statesman Of Canadian Theatre Throws His Weight Behind Protests
Gordon Pinsent And The Oil Sands: Elder Statesman Of Canadian Theatre Throws His Weight Behind Protests
Gordon Pinsent is the latest Canadian celebrity to endorse the protest against the oil sands planned for Parliament Hill on Monday.
Canada’s elder statesman of theatre spoke out on Thursday in opposition to the oil sands, which have come under increasing scrutiny in recent weeks following well-publicized protests in Washington over the proposed Keystone XL Pipeline.
“I can't think of anything -- here, now, or in our future -- that would rank above the tar sands for sheer, blind, stupidity,” Pinsent said in a press release by Greenpeace Canada, one of several organizations behind the protest. “The dangerous minds who are heralding the tar sands as an answer of any kind to our betterment need to be shut down with such positive action as to cancel any possible recurrence.”
Musician Dave Bidini and member of the Order of Canada Tantoo Cardinal -- the first Canadian indigenous celebrity to pledge to be in attendance at the Ottawa event -- are other recent additions to the small but apparently growing list of Canadian celebrities that have lent their support to the action. Dave Thomas of SCTV fame, as well as Graham Greene, Mia Kirshner and Kate Vernon have also given their stamp of approval to the protest.
Gordon Pinsent is the latest Canadian celebrity to endorse the protest against the oil sands planned for Parliament Hill on Monday.
Canada’s elder statesman of theatre spoke out on Thursday in opposition to the oil sands, which have come under increasing scrutiny in recent weeks following well-publicized protests in Washington over the proposed Keystone XL Pipeline.
“I can't think of anything -- here, now, or in our future -- that would rank above the tar sands for sheer, blind, stupidity,” Pinsent said in a press release by Greenpeace Canada, one of several organizations behind the protest. “The dangerous minds who are heralding the tar sands as an answer of any kind to our betterment need to be shut down with such positive action as to cancel any possible recurrence.”
Musician Dave Bidini and member of the Order of Canada Tantoo Cardinal -- the first Canadian indigenous celebrity to pledge to be in attendance at the Ottawa event -- are other recent additions to the small but apparently growing list of Canadian celebrities that have lent their support to the action. Dave Thomas of SCTV fame, as well as Graham Greene, Mia Kirshner and Kate Vernon have also given their stamp of approval to the protest.
Gagging the Gag Rule for Good
Gagging the Gag Rule for Good
Written by Mimi Seidner, a Ms. Magazine blogger
In three years, one of the most volatile on-and-off-again relationships in American history will celebrate its 30th anniversary: that of the Global Gag Rule and U.S. global policy. But if Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) can convince her Senate colleagues, the gag rule might not live to receive its pearls.
The rule (also known as the Mexico City Policy) was instated through executive order by President Ronald Reagan in 1984, prohibiting NGOs who depend on U.S. international family planning funding from providing information about abortion services; referring patients to safe, clean, legal facilities for abortions; or simply mentioning abortion services, even as an option in countries where abortions are legal. It has been estimated to have led to the deaths of thousands of women who sought illegal, unsafe abortions because that was the only choice they had.
Sen. Boxer, along with Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.) and fifteen other colleagues, has reintroduced the Global Democracy Promotion Act to permanently repeal the Global Gag Rule, preventing future executive orders from reinstating it. This permanence is needed because the gag rule is a political football, rescinded by President Bill Clinton, reinstated by President George W. Bush, repealed again by President Barack Obama and now up for both reinstatement and permanent repeal.
Sen. Boxer has pointed out that,
Written by Mimi Seidner, a Ms. Magazine blogger
In three years, one of the most volatile on-and-off-again relationships in American history will celebrate its 30th anniversary: that of the Global Gag Rule and U.S. global policy. But if Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) can convince her Senate colleagues, the gag rule might not live to receive its pearls.
The rule (also known as the Mexico City Policy) was instated through executive order by President Ronald Reagan in 1984, prohibiting NGOs who depend on U.S. international family planning funding from providing information about abortion services; referring patients to safe, clean, legal facilities for abortions; or simply mentioning abortion services, even as an option in countries where abortions are legal. It has been estimated to have led to the deaths of thousands of women who sought illegal, unsafe abortions because that was the only choice they had.
Sen. Boxer, along with Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.) and fifteen other colleagues, has reintroduced the Global Democracy Promotion Act to permanently repeal the Global Gag Rule, preventing future executive orders from reinstating it. This permanence is needed because the gag rule is a political football, rescinded by President Bill Clinton, reinstated by President George W. Bush, repealed again by President Barack Obama and now up for both reinstatement and permanent repeal.
Sen. Boxer has pointed out that,
If the Global Gag Rule were applied in the United States, it would violate the First Amendment because it restricts what organizations can do or say with their own funds. Ending this undemocratic policy is long overdue.
Permanently ending the Global Gag Rule would save NGOs the heartbreak of choosing between accepting American family planning assistance under draconian anti-abortion restrictions or limiting vital services, cutting staff and ultimately closing clinics. It would also save women’s lives.
Tar Sands action in Ottawa today
More than 180 people - in groupings of 32 waves - are now preparing to soon peacefully cross a police barricade in front of the Centre Block in an attempt to take this message - through a sit-in - to the foyer near the House of Commons.
A powerful rally is now taking place with First Nations leaders, CEP president Dave Coles, Tony Clarke, and numerous others speaking.
Council of Canadians chairperson Maude Barlow will be speaking momentarily. Barlow will also be in the first wave of activists to pass over the fence.
Sunday
New UN Human Rights Logo unveiled
The first ever logo for human rights was unveiled Friday night, at an event in New York hosted by the global charity organization, Cinema for Peace. The logo aims to become a universally recognized symbol for the promotion and implementation of human rights around the world. It comes at an important time, as millions of citizens in the Middle East and around the world are struggling against oppressive regimes and myriad human rights violations.
In a presentation introducing the logo for the first time, news anchor Ann Curry explained the concept of the logo, stating, "If symbols are a way to communicate what we value most, it is time for a symbol for human rights." The new design, which brings to mind both a human hand and a bird in flight, was created by Serbian designer Predrag Stakic. Stakic's logo was the winner of an online contest, and was chosen from overwhelming pool of 15,000 entries which were submitted by designers in 190 countries.
The field of entries was narrowed down to 10 finalists by a panel of judges that included some of the world's most important leaders and human rights defenders. Nobel Peace Prize Laureates Aung San Suu Kyi, Jimmy Carter, Muhammed Yunus, Mikhail Gorbachev and Shirin Ebadi, as well as Chinese artist Ai Weiwei, Cambodian human rights activist Somaly Mam, Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales, Columbian musician Juanes and UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Navanathem Pillay all voted for the new human rights logo, which they hope will some day be a globally understood symbol of hope. When asked about the project, and its impressive jury, Human Rights Logo supporter and CEO of United Internet Media, Matthias Ehrlich said, "The jury reflects the diversity of the world, with people representing nearly every continent. Most importantly, they are people who are engaged in the human rights movement, meaning that the movement itself is choosing its symbol."
In a video message to those gathered at the presentation, Burmese opposition politician and human rights icon, Aung San Suu Kyi said, "I look forward to the time when this logo will be seen all over the world, from the smallest towns to the biggest cities. I hope that little children and babies will see it and it will be a sign of happiness, peace and security to them."
Also in attendance were Leila and Manoubia Bouazizi, sister and mother of Mohamed Bouazizi, the man who inspired the Arab Spring by committing suicide by self-immolation in January of 2011. The assembled audience was moved as the pair spoke of his life and the repercussions of his death. Through a translator, his sister Leila Bouazizi expressed solidarity with the revolutions taking place across the Arab world, and called upon human rights leaders to stand with those who had sacrificed themselves for freedom, justice and dignity - the ideals of the Arab Spring.
As citizens around the world protest and make sacrifices for the ideals Leila Bouazizi spoke of, they will have one new tool in their arsenal, a symbol that demands human rights for everyone, in every language.
The Humanist Case against Capital Punishment | Center for Inquiry
The Humanist Case against Capital Punishment | CFI Amherst
Humanism cannot support the death penalty.
Humanism stands for a social ethics of equality, individual human rights, justice for everyone, and government that defend their citizens.
Death penalty supporters appeal to these principles, too. But they narrowly interpret them to justify government killings, and they coldly apply them to the weakest among us. The pro-death side behaves as if some people’s value is higher than others, the rights of the victim outweigh the rights of the accused, the desire for retribution should dictate just punishment, and that the government needn’t defend everyone equally.
The pro-death camp will admit that trials can deliver wrong verdicts. There’s no way to ignore how many defendants get poor legal counsel, and how death-row inmates can be proven innocent on fresh evidence. Yet pro-deathers prefer a criminal system that kills all the murderous guilty along with some innocents over a criminal system that might let a single guilty murderer escape death. The rights of the victims far outweigh the rights of the accused, in their estimation. The blood of the victim on the ground cries out for retribution -- any retribution available -- and the government’s overriding duty becomes the delivery of that retribution.
Dominated by that vengeful spirit, the criminal justice system encourages prosecutors to chase a conviction of whoever they can, rather than the truly guilty; it distracts jurors from the lofty standard of reasonable doubt; and it lets supervisory courts forget their supreme duty of justice for all. In that heated atmosphere of swift vengeance, the criminal “justice” system mostly executes the poor, the disadvantaged, and racial minorities. Evidently, the pro-death camp is satisfied with a system that can’t value some lives as much as others.
Pro-deathers should broaden their principles. Governments exist not merely to deliver criminal justice, but to protect and defend the lives and rights of everyone. When a government executes an innocent person, it violates the ultimate justification for its own existence. The death penalty permits the government to mutate into a loathsome tyrant over its own people, rather than its protector. Other punishment options, especially the life sentence without parole, are sufficient to protect the population and signal disapproval of murder.
Pro-deathers should look inside to ponder this drive to vengeance toward other human beings. The pro-death argument exalts death-retribution as an exemplary valuing of human life. Humanism replies that the rational way to respect human life is to stop killing people. The pro-death side fears weakness in the face of violence against society. Humanism replies that the true strength of a society lies in its commitment to social justice. Pro-deathers are quick to judge who should die and who should live, as if they were a god. Would they want to be on the receiving end of an all-too-human system passing judgment on them?
Humanism stands for valuing the lives of all, individual human rights, justice for everyone, and governments that defend all of their people. These grounds alone are sufficient for abolishing the death penalty. Humanism also stands for elevating human dignity and pursuing the nobler virtues of common humanity. Even if some perfected criminal system could execute only the truly guilty, such murderous machinery is still unworthy of us. Any institution that still encourages vengeance and retribution over equal social justice and protection of everyone is a decrepit perversion of civilization.
Humanism looks forward to a time when society consistently respects humane virtues. But a day of execution is day of sadness and shame. May we have mercy on us all.
Humanism cannot support the death penalty.
Humanism stands for a social ethics of equality, individual human rights, justice for everyone, and government that defend their citizens.
Death penalty supporters appeal to these principles, too. But they narrowly interpret them to justify government killings, and they coldly apply them to the weakest among us. The pro-death side behaves as if some people’s value is higher than others, the rights of the victim outweigh the rights of the accused, the desire for retribution should dictate just punishment, and that the government needn’t defend everyone equally.
The pro-death camp will admit that trials can deliver wrong verdicts. There’s no way to ignore how many defendants get poor legal counsel, and how death-row inmates can be proven innocent on fresh evidence. Yet pro-deathers prefer a criminal system that kills all the murderous guilty along with some innocents over a criminal system that might let a single guilty murderer escape death. The rights of the victims far outweigh the rights of the accused, in their estimation. The blood of the victim on the ground cries out for retribution -- any retribution available -- and the government’s overriding duty becomes the delivery of that retribution.
Dominated by that vengeful spirit, the criminal justice system encourages prosecutors to chase a conviction of whoever they can, rather than the truly guilty; it distracts jurors from the lofty standard of reasonable doubt; and it lets supervisory courts forget their supreme duty of justice for all. In that heated atmosphere of swift vengeance, the criminal “justice” system mostly executes the poor, the disadvantaged, and racial minorities. Evidently, the pro-death camp is satisfied with a system that can’t value some lives as much as others.
Pro-deathers should broaden their principles. Governments exist not merely to deliver criminal justice, but to protect and defend the lives and rights of everyone. When a government executes an innocent person, it violates the ultimate justification for its own existence. The death penalty permits the government to mutate into a loathsome tyrant over its own people, rather than its protector. Other punishment options, especially the life sentence without parole, are sufficient to protect the population and signal disapproval of murder.
Pro-deathers should look inside to ponder this drive to vengeance toward other human beings. The pro-death argument exalts death-retribution as an exemplary valuing of human life. Humanism replies that the rational way to respect human life is to stop killing people. The pro-death side fears weakness in the face of violence against society. Humanism replies that the true strength of a society lies in its commitment to social justice. Pro-deathers are quick to judge who should die and who should live, as if they were a god. Would they want to be on the receiving end of an all-too-human system passing judgment on them?
Humanism stands for valuing the lives of all, individual human rights, justice for everyone, and governments that defend all of their people. These grounds alone are sufficient for abolishing the death penalty. Humanism also stands for elevating human dignity and pursuing the nobler virtues of common humanity. Even if some perfected criminal system could execute only the truly guilty, such murderous machinery is still unworthy of us. Any institution that still encourages vengeance and retribution over equal social justice and protection of everyone is a decrepit perversion of civilization.
Humanism looks forward to a time when society consistently respects humane virtues. But a day of execution is day of sadness and shame. May we have mercy on us all.
Thursday
Death Penalty Links | Amnesty International USA
Death Penalty Links | Amnesty International USA
Here are the US State organizations working to ban the Death Penalty. Get local....
Here are the US State organizations working to ban the Death Penalty. Get local....
The State-Sanctioned Killing of Troy Davis
The State-Sanctioned Killing of Troy Davis
from TalkLeft - a long running site from a practicing lawyer on politics and legal matters in the US.
The article clarifies the sense of abandonment of all judicial principles in the spirit of 'revenge'.
...The murder of Troy Davis, defenders of the act will say, provided closure to the family of Officer MacPhail, whom Davis was convicted of killing with, as people have been repeating for the past week, “too much doubt.” If Davis is not the killer, the family has no closure. The person who really committed the crime is still on the loose. Putting Davis to death just gave the MacPhails and others a reason to move on and abandon a quest for legalized vengeance. And, so, what society and citizens who have no problem with this atrocity are in effect saying is as long as someone can be found to be cast as the convict and as long as the state can carry out the death sentence to the end result, which involves state-sanctioned murder, justice will be done.
from TalkLeft - a long running site from a practicing lawyer on politics and legal matters in the US.
The article clarifies the sense of abandonment of all judicial principles in the spirit of 'revenge'.
...The murder of Troy Davis, defenders of the act will say, provided closure to the family of Officer MacPhail, whom Davis was convicted of killing with, as people have been repeating for the past week, “too much doubt.” If Davis is not the killer, the family has no closure. The person who really committed the crime is still on the loose. Putting Davis to death just gave the MacPhails and others a reason to move on and abandon a quest for legalized vengeance. And, so, what society and citizens who have no problem with this atrocity are in effect saying is as long as someone can be found to be cast as the convict and as long as the state can carry out the death sentence to the end result, which involves state-sanctioned murder, justice will be done.
Tuesday
GMOS: Super Weeds Pose Growing Threat to U.S. Crops
Super Weeds Pose Growing Threat to U.S. Crops | Common Dreams
Published on Tuesday, September 20, 2011 by Reuters by Carey Gillam
PAOLA, Kansas - Farmer Mark Nelson bends down and yanks a four-foot-tall weed from his northeast Kansas soybean field. The "waterhemp" towers above his beans, sucking up the soil moisture and nutrients his beans need to grow well and reducing the ultimate yield. As he crumples the flowering end of the weed in his hand, Nelson grimaces.
"We are at a disturbing juncture," said Margaret Mellon, director of the food and environment program at the Union of Concerned Scientists. "The use of toxic chemicals in agriculture is skyrocketing. This is not the path to sustainability." "When we harvest this field, these waterhemp seeds will spread all over kingdom come," he said.
Nelson's struggle to control crop-choking weeds is being repeated all over America's farmland. An estimated 11 million acres are infested with "super weeds," some of which grow several inches in a day and defy even multiple dousings of the world's top-selling herbicide, Roundup, whose active ingredient is glyphosate. The problem's gradual emergence has masked its growing menace. Now, however, it is becoming too big to ignore. The super weeds boost costs and cut crop yields for U.S. farmers starting their fall harvest this month. And their use of more herbicides to fight the weeds is sparking environmental concerns.
With food prices near record highs and a growing population straining global grain supplies, the world cannot afford diminished crop production, nor added environmental problems. "I'm convinced that this is a big problem," said Dave Mortensen, professor of weed and applied plant ecology at Penn State University, who has been helping lobby members of Congress about the implications of weed resistance.
"Most of the public doesn't know because the industry is calling the shots on how this should be spun," Mortensen said.
Last month, representatives from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the Department of Agriculture and the Weed Science Society of America toured the Midwest crop belt to see for themselves the impact of rising weed resistance. "It is only going to get worse," said Lee Van Wychen, director of science policy at the Weed Science Society of America.
Published on Tuesday, September 20, 2011 by Reuters by Carey Gillam
PAOLA, Kansas - Farmer Mark Nelson bends down and yanks a four-foot-tall weed from his northeast Kansas soybean field. The "waterhemp" towers above his beans, sucking up the soil moisture and nutrients his beans need to grow well and reducing the ultimate yield. As he crumples the flowering end of the weed in his hand, Nelson grimaces.
"We are at a disturbing juncture," said Margaret Mellon, director of the food and environment program at the Union of Concerned Scientists. "The use of toxic chemicals in agriculture is skyrocketing. This is not the path to sustainability." "When we harvest this field, these waterhemp seeds will spread all over kingdom come," he said.
Nelson's struggle to control crop-choking weeds is being repeated all over America's farmland. An estimated 11 million acres are infested with "super weeds," some of which grow several inches in a day and defy even multiple dousings of the world's top-selling herbicide, Roundup, whose active ingredient is glyphosate. The problem's gradual emergence has masked its growing menace. Now, however, it is becoming too big to ignore. The super weeds boost costs and cut crop yields for U.S. farmers starting their fall harvest this month. And their use of more herbicides to fight the weeds is sparking environmental concerns.
With food prices near record highs and a growing population straining global grain supplies, the world cannot afford diminished crop production, nor added environmental problems. "I'm convinced that this is a big problem," said Dave Mortensen, professor of weed and applied plant ecology at Penn State University, who has been helping lobby members of Congress about the implications of weed resistance.
"Most of the public doesn't know because the industry is calling the shots on how this should be spun," Mortensen said.
Last month, representatives from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the Department of Agriculture and the Weed Science Society of America toured the Midwest crop belt to see for themselves the impact of rising weed resistance. "It is only going to get worse," said Lee Van Wychen, director of science policy at the Weed Science Society of America.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)