Awareness, not mandatory GMO labels, shifts consumer preference

Peer-Reviewed Publication

CORNELL UNIVERSITY

ITHACA, N.Y. – Six years ago, the state of Vermont passed what turned out to be a short-lived law mandating disclosure of genetically modified organisms, or GMOs, on all food products. That law’s effect? A collective shrug of the shoulders.

That doesn’t mean people don’t care about whether GMO ingredients are in their food, according to new Cornell research. Although the mandatory labeling law didn’t change consumer purchasing patterns, the researchers found that the increased consumer awareness caused by the legislation, coupled with existing non-GMO labeling, actually did shift preferences.

“For the consumers who care about this non-GMO attribute, they already have a relevant information signal available in the form of the non-GMO label,” said Jura Liaukonyte, the Dake Family Associate Professor in the Charles H. Dyson School of Applied Economics and Management.

“That’s when the switching happens,” Liaukonyte said, “and this switching is triggered by a heightened awareness through these legislative conversations.”

“GMO and non-GMO Labeling Effects: Evidence From a Quasi-Natural Experiment,” published Aug. 29 in Marketing Science. Liaukonyte’s co-authors were Aaron Adalja, assistant professor of food and beverage management in the Cornell Peter and Stephanie Nolan School of Hotel Administration; Emily Wang of the University of Massachusetts, Amherst; and Xinrong Zhu, of Imperial College Business School. Both Dyson and the Nolan School are in the Cornell SC Johnson College of Business.

The group’s key finding: An increase in consumer awareness around GMO-related topics – even in states that didn’t ultimately pass GMO labeling laws – is linked to an increase in demand for non-GMO products. And that difference can be quantified: They found that 36% of new non-GMO product adoption can be explained by differences in consumer awareness tied to legislative activity.

“What’s really interesting is the way legislative activity essentially generates consumer awareness,” Adalja said. “In the paper, we differentiate between this ‘indirect awareness effect’ and the direct effect of labeling, and we show that indirect awareness – in this case, the labeling legislation being discussed in the media – is really the primary mechanism by which we find consumer preferences are shifting.”

Over the last three decades, GMO labeling has become an increasingly important topic of public and political debate. The paper cites a 2016 National Academy of Sciences report finding no scientific evidence that GMO foods are less healthy or safe than non-GMO products; however, on Jan. 1, 2022, the United States mandated disclosure labels on all foods that contain GMOs.

The controversy over GMOs sparked several state-level labeling initiatives over the years, but Vermont was the only state to successfully pass and implement a labeling law. The law took effect July 1, 2016, but was quickly preempted by the National Bioengineered Food Disclosure Standard, signed into law by President Barack Obama on July 29, 2016.

For their study, the researchers analyzed GMO labeling in three steps. They first examined the relationship between the adoption rate of newly introduced non-GMO products and consumer awareness at the time of introduction. These products are identified by the “Non-GMO Project Verified” label, a certification from the third-party nonprofit Non-GMO Project, which has been used since 2010.

Then they analyzed the natural experiment condition created in the run-up to Vermont adopting its GMO labeling law in 2016, to gauge the relationship between product demand and the information available via on-the-ground efforts related to the legislation. The increase in demand tied to increased awareness was significant, the authors found.

And finally, the authors looked into whether actual adoption of the Vermont law – GMO labels appearing on store shelves – resulted in any additional demand for non-GMO or GMO products. It did not.

Previous studies, conducted via questionnaires or in laboratory settings, indicated that GMO labeling would result in big swings in consumer preference, but the Cornell researchers’ study in the field found a more subtle change.

“It’s difficult to approximate in the lab the complexity of the actual marketplace with its many co-existing information signals,” Liaukonyte said.

Adalja said the role of legislative discussion around GMO labeling – even in states that didn’t ultimately adopt labeling laws – was compelling.

“That has some important implications,” he said. “It’s another mechanism lawmakers need to consider when designing and debating policies that aim to change preferences of consumers.”

They also suggest that voluntary non-GMO labels – increasingly common over the last dozen years – may have provided a sufficient disclosure mechanism even without mandatory GMO labeling.

For additional information, see this Cornell Chronicle story.

-30-

---

JOURNAL

Marketing Science

DOI

10.1287/mksc.2022.1375 

ARTICLE TITLE

GMO and Non-GMO Labeling Effects: Evidence from a Quasi-Natural Experiment

ARTICLE PUBLICATION DATE

29-Aug-2022

GMO IS OMG BACKWARDS

Mexico denies permit for new GMO corn variety, first time ever

David Alire Garcia and Adriana Barrera
Fri, October 8, 2021

MEXICO CITY, Oct 8 (Reuters) - Mexican health safety regulators have rejected a new variety of GMO corn for the first time, according to German conglomerate Bayer which makes the grain and blasted the decision, saying it was looking into its legal options.

Mexico, birthplace of modern corn, has never permitted the commercial-scale cultivation of GMO corn but has for decades allowed such varieties to be imported, mostly from U.S. farmers and overwhelmingly used to fatten livestock.

Mexican regulators did not confirm the decision and also did not reply to several requests for comment. Regulators must approve each new variety developed by seed companies before crops grown from them can later be imported.

In late August, heath regulator Cofepris rejected a permit for a new GMO corn variety sought by pharmaceutical and crop science giant Bayer, according to data from Mexico's National Farm Council (CNA) later confirmed by the company.

The regulator determined that the new seed variety was designed to tolerate weed-killer glyphosate, adding it considers the widely used herbicide dangerous and said its rejection was based on a "precautionary principle," the data showed.

The Cofepris ruling was never publicly disclosed, and its press office did not respond to requests for comment.

CNA President Juan Cortina said in an interview that Mexican corn importers will begin to feel the impact from the rejection as soon as next year.

"This is the first obstacle, which isn't immediate, but it's coming," he said, pointing to seven other pending GMO corn seed permits that have been waiting from between 14 to 34 months for a resolution. He said he believed the decision violated the USMCA North American trade agreement.

Neither Mexico's economy ministry, responsible for international trade, or the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative in Washington, immediately responded to a request for comment on Cortina's allegation.

While regulators worldwide have determined glyphosate to be safe, Bayer agreed last year to settle nearly 100,000 U.S. lawsuits for $9.6 billion, while denying claims that the herbicide caused cancer. In February, it struck a $2 billion settlement to resolve future legal claims that glyphosate causes cancer.

In a statement sent to Reuters, Bayer said it was disappointed by the regulator's decision which it described as "unscientific." The company said regulatory delays and the possibility of additional permit denials could have a "devastating impact" on Mexican supply chains.

Bayer said GMO crops have undergone more safety tests than "any other crop in the history of agriculture" and have been judged safe.

In the past, the Mexican government has approved some 90 GMO corn varieties for import, among nearly 170 total approvals for GMO seeds including cotton and soybeans. But under President Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador, who took office in late 2018, no GMO seeds have been approved by Cofepris.

Last year, Mexico imported more than 16 million tonnes of corn from U.S. suppliers, almost all of it grown from GMO varieties.

Cortina said this year the country was poised to import "more than 19 million tonnes," which would mark an all-time record, even as the government pledges to boost domestic production.

Mexico is mostly self-sufficient in its production of white corn, which is used to make the country's staple tortillas, but depends heavily on yellow corn imports for both livestock feed as well as numerous industrial uses like making cereals and sauces.

Lopez Obrador issued a decree late last year that seeks to ban by 2024 both glyphosate and GMO corn for human consumption, but officials have yet to clarify if the ban would apply to livestock feed or the industrial demand.

Deputy Agriculture Minister Victor Suarez, an influential backer of the decree, said last month that the government is now aiming to cut corn imports by half by 2024.

"Right now, I don't think it's going down," said Cortina, referring to the country's demand for imported corn.

He pointed to official agriculture ministry data showing that domestic corn production is down more than 5% during the first six months of this year. 

(Reporting by David Alire Garcia and Adriana Barrera; Additional reporting by David Lawder in Washington; Editing by David Gregorio)

Bayer blasts 'unscientific' rejection by Mexican regulator of GMO corn permit

David Alire Garcia
Fri, October 8, 2021

FILE PHOTO: The historic headquarters of German pharmaceutical and chemical maker Bayer AG is pictured in Leverkusen

BAYER OFFICE DURING WWII

By David Alire Garcia

MEXICO CITY (Reuters) -Bayer is evaluating its legal options after Mexican health regulators for the first time rejected a GMO corn permit it was seeking, the German pharmaceutical and crop science giant said in a statement to Reuters on Friday, blasting the decision as "unscientific."

Reuters reported earlier in the day that regulator Cofepris rejected the corn permit for future import as the government of President Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador hardens its opposition to genetically modified crops.

"We are disappointed with the unscientific reasons that Cofepris used to deny the authorization," the statement said, identifying the rejected corn variety as using its proprietary HT3 x SmartStax Pro technology.

Bayer stressed that the permit denial does not affect its current business, noting that last year the company stopped work on its HT3 hybrid corn varieties due to regulatory delays in the European Union in favor of a new HT4 line which the company expects to launch later this decade.

Bayer nonetheless criticized what it described as continuous regulatory delays with Cofepris as well as the possibility of additional permit denials that could have a "devastating impact" on Mexican supply chains.

The company said genetically modified crops including corn have undergone more safety tests than "any other crop in the history of agriculture" and have been judged safe for humans, animals and the environment.

The Cofepris press office did not respond to multiple requests for comment.

Lopez Obrador issued a controversial decree at the end of last year that outlined a three-year plan to ban the weed killer glyphosate and GMO corn for human consumption.

Industry associations have sharply criticized the plan and have sought unsuccessfully to persuade judges to strike it down, arguing that it risks a trade dispute with the United States. If the ban is interpreted to include animal feed or other industrial uses, they say it will ultimately hit consumers with higher food prices.

The planned prohibition, however, is popular with environmentalists and health-food advocates who argue that spraying glyphosate on the GMO crops designed to tolerate them is indeed harmful.

Glyphosate was pioneered by the Roundup brand of weed killers from agrochemical company Monsanto, which was bought by Bayer as part of a $63 billion acquisition in 2018.

(Reporting by David Alire Garcia in Mexico City;Editing by Christian Plumb and Matthew Lewis)

 

GMOs Will Destroy Indian Agriculture, Which is Non-GMO and Will Harm the Health of 1 Billion Indians and Their Animals

by Aruna Rodrigues / January 31st, 2024

Hybrid Bt cotton, the only commercialised GM crop in India, has failed conclusively. Based on this failure and the evidence on GM crops to date, the Union of India’s proposal to commercialise herbicide-tolerant (HT) mustard will destroy not just Indian mustard agriculture but citizens’ health.

There have been five days of intense hearings on this matter in the Supreme Court (SC) — the GMO Public Interest Writ filed almost 20 years ago in 2005 by the author, which ended on 18 January 2024.

In these last 20 years, piecemeal hearings have dealt with submissions relating to individual crops like hybrid Bt cotton, the attempted commercialisation of hybrid Bt brinjal (2010) and now the attempt to commercialise hybrid HT mustard.

The evidence provided here is a distillation of the critical inputs of those 60+ submissions based on the affidavits and studies of leading, independent scientists and experts of international renown.

However, there is a serious and proven conflict of interest among our regulators, the Ministry of Science and Technology and the Ministry of Agriculture along with the International Council of Agricultural Research (ICAR), which promote GMOs in Indian agriculture. This evidence reflects the findings of the TEC Report (Technical Expert Committee) appointed by the Supreme Court (SC) in 2012 and two Parliamentary Standing Committees of 2012 and 2017.

‘Modern biotechnology’ or genetically modified organisms (GMOs) are products where the genomes of organisms are transformed through laboratory techniques, including genetically engineered DNA (recombinant) and its direct introduction into cells. These are techniques not used in traditional breeding and selection.

GMOs create organisms in ways that have never existed in 3.8 billion years of evolution and produce ‘unintended effects’ that are not immediately apparent. This is why rigorous, independent protocols for risk and hazard identification are the sine qua non of correct regulation in the public interest. The Indian ‘Rules of 1989’ describe GMOs as “hazardous”.

Contamination by GMOs of the natural environment is of outstanding concern, recognised by the CBD (Convention on Biodiversity), of which India is a signatory. India is one of 17 listed international hot spots of diversity, which includes mustard, brinjal and rice.  India is the centre of the world’s biological diversity in brinjal with over 2500 varieties grown in the country and as many as 29 wild species.

India is a secondary centre of origin of rape-seed mustard with over 9000 accessions in our gene bank (National Bureau of Plant Genetic Resources). With a commercialised GM crop, contamination is certain. The precautionary principle must apply, is read into the Constitution and is a legal precedent in India.

Hybrid Bt cotton was introduced in 2002 and remains the only approved commercialised crop in India. It has been an abject failure.

Failure of Bt cotton

India is the only country in the world to have introduced the Bt gene into hybrid Bt Cotton.  It was introduced in hybrids as a ‘value-capture mechanism’, according to Dr Kranthi, ex director of the Central Institute for Cotton Research (CICR). The hybrid technology disallows seed saving by millions of small farmers. Conservative estimates indicate that Indian farmers may have paid an additional amount of Rs 14,000 crores for Bt cotton seeds during the period 2002-18, of which trait fees amounted to Rs 7337.37 crores, (Dr Kranthi). There was also a phenomenal three-fold increase in labour costs in hybrid cotton cultivation.

Prof. Andrew Gutierrez (University of California, Berkeley) is among the world’s leading entomologists and cotton scientists and provided the ecological explanation of why hybrid Bt cotton is every bit a disaster that it is in India. Most hybrid cottons are long season (180-200-day duration). This increases the opportunities for pest resurgence and outbreaks because it links into the lifecycle of the pest. The low-density planting also increases the cost of hybrid seeds substantially.

Hybrids require stable water too (therefore, irrigation, as opposed to rain-fed) and more fertiliser. Some 90% of current Bt cotton hybrids appear susceptible to sap-sucking insects, leaf-curl virus and leaf reddening, adding to input costs and loss of yield. Most telling is that India produces only 3.3 million tonnes from its irrigated area of 4.9 million hectares compared to 6.96 million tonnes from an equivalent area in China.

Hybrid Bt cotton in India has resulted in a yield plateau, high production costs and low productivity that reduce farmer revenues, correlated with increased farmer distress and suicides. It has stymied the development of economically viable high-density short-season (HD-SS) Non-Bt high-yielding straight-line varieties. The failure of hybrid Bt cotton is an abject lesson for GMO implementation in other crops.

Yet, the regulators attempted to repeat history in the form of hybrid Bt brinjal and Hybrid HT Mustard.

Field trial solutions (CICR data) of high-density short-season (HD-SS) NON-GMO pure-line (non-hybrid), rainfed cotton varieties have been developed in India that could more than double yield and nearly triple net income.

The Central Government admitted in its affidavit in the Delhi High Court (22 Jan 2016), adding, (on 23 January 2017), that Bt “cotton seeds are now unaffordable to farmers due to high royalties charged by MMBL (Mahyco Monsanto Biotech Ltd) which has a near monopoly on Bt cotton seeds and that this has led to a market failure”.

Moreover, there is no trait for yield enhancement in the Bt technology. Any intrinsic yield increase is properly attributable to its hybridisation in both Bt cotton and Bt brinjal. Lower insecticide use is the reason for introducing the Bt technology worldwide.

The pink bollworm has developed high levels of resistance against Bollgard-II Bt cotton, leading to increased insecticide usage in India, increases in new induced secondary pests and crop failures. The annual report 2015-16 of the ICAT-CICR confirms that Bt cotton is no longer effective for bollworm control

Insecticide usage on cotton in 2002 was 0.88 kg per hectare, which increased to 0.97 kg per hectare in 2013 (Srivastav and Kolady 2016).

Matters were deliberately muddied in India, leading to any hybrid vigour being attributed to the Bt technology! Yields have stagnated despite the deployment of all available latest technologies, including the introduction of new potent GM technologies, a two-fold increase in the use of fertilisers and increased insecticide use and irrigation. And yet, India’s global rank is 30-32nd in terms of yield.

In 13 years, the cost of cultivation increased 302%. In 15 years, there was 450% increase in labour costs. The costs of hybrid seed, insecticide and fertiliser increased more than 250 to 300%.

Net profit for farmers was Rs. 5971/ha in 2003 (pre-Bt) but plummeted to net losses of Rs. 6286 in 2015 (Dr Kranthi)

Regulatory failure: Bt brinjal

Regulators tried to commercialise Bt brinjal and in hybrids in 2009. The Bt gene is proven to be undeniably toxic (Profs. Schubert of the Salk Institute; Pusztai, Seralini and others have confirmed this).

In August 2008, the regulators were forced to publish the Developers’ (Monsanto-Mahyco) self-assessed bio-safety dossier on their website, 16 months after the order of the SC to make the safety dossier data public (15 Feb 2007).

Bt brinjal was the first vegetable food crop in the world to be approved for commercialisation, by the collective regulatory body and their expert committees, virtually without oversight. When the international scientific community examined the raw data, their collective comments were scathing. Prof Jack Heinemann stated that Mahyco has failed at the first, elementary step of the safety study: “I have never seen less professionalism in the presentation and quality assurance of molecular data than in this study”.

He criticised Mahyco for using outdated studies, testing to below acceptable standards and inappropriate and invalid test methods.

Prof David Andow, in his comprehensive critique of Monsanto’s Dossier, ‘Bt brinjal Event EE1’, listed 37 studies of which perhaps one had been conducted and reported to a satisfactory level by Monsanto. He concluded: “The GEAC set too narrow a scope for environmental risk assessment (ERA) of hybrid Bt brinjal, and it is because of this overly narrow scope that the EC-II is not an adequate ERA… most of the possible environmental risks of Bt brinjal have not been adequately evaluated; this includes risks to local varieties of brinjal and wild relatives, risks to biological diversity, and risk of resistance evolution in BFSB.”

The Central Government itself declared an unconditional and indefinite moratorium on Bt brinjal in Feb 2009 based on the collective responses of the scientific community.

Disaster in the making: GM Hybrid HT Mustard

Like Bt, HT is a pesticidal crop (to kill weeds). These two GMO technologies represent about 98% of crops planted worldwide, with HT crops accounting for more than 80%. Neither has a trait for yield. In its 2002 Report, the United States Department for Agriculture stated: “currently available GM crops do not increase the yield potential… In fact, yield may even decrease if the varieties used to carry the herbicide tolerant or insect-resistant genes are not the highest yielding cultivars… Perhaps the biggest issue raised by these results is how to explain the rapid adoption of GE crops when farm financial impacts appear to be mixed or even negative.” 

The developer’s (Centre for Genetic Manipulation of Crop Plants University of Delhi) bio-safety dossier, in contempt of the SC orders, has never made its data public. A Right to Information (RTI) request was filed in 2016 with the Directorate of Rape-Seed Mustard Research, which conducts protocols of non-GMO mustard trials for crop improvement programmes for our farmers, for varietal stability and performance. The RTI was an eye opener. Virtually all the directorate’s norms were flouted in the field trials, making them invalid. Hybrid mustard HT DMH 11 was out yielded by more than the 10% norm by non-GMO varieties and hybrids, which forced the developers to admit this fact in their formal reply affidavit in the SC.

Hybrid HT mustard DMH 11 employs three transgenes: the male sterility gene, barnase, the female restorer gene, barstar, and the bar gene that confers tolerance to Bayer’s herbicide glufosinate ammonium or BASTA. Each of the parent lines has the bar gene that makes them both HT crops along with their resulting hybrid DMH 11. The reason for employing barnase and barstar is because mustard is a closed pollinating crop (even though it out crosses pretty well, 18%+) and this technology (a male sterility technology) makes it easier to produce mustard hybrids.  It is not a hybrid technology. Its counterpart in non-GMO male sterility technology is the CMS system (cytoplasmic male sterility). Employing male sterility in mustard allows it to be used more easily in already existing hybridisation technology.

It is curious the extent to which the regulators have tried to obfuscate the facts and muddy the waters. Their first response was that the acronym HT in mustard DMH 11 means ‘hybrid technology’. When this didn’t work, the next ‘try’ was that DMH 11 isn’t an HT crop!

This too was easily proved wrong because of the presence of the bar gene. Now, this fact has been admitted.

Furthermore, the regulators have failed either intentionally, or because they are simply unable to stop, illegal HT cotton being grown on a commercial scale for the last 15 years or so. This is the state of GMO regulation in India.

Bayer’s own data sheet states that glufosinate causes birth defects and is damaging to most plants that it comes into contact with. Like its counterpart, glyphosate, it is a systemic, broad spectrum, non-selective herbicide (it kills indiscriminately soil organisms, beneficial insects etc) and is damaging to most plants and aquatic life. The US Environmental Protection Agency classifies glufosinate ammonium as “persistent” and “mobile” and is “expected to adversely affect non-target terrestrial plant species”.

Glufosinate is not permitted in crop plants in India, under the Insecticide Act. Since it is very persistent in the environment, it will certainly contaminate water supplies in addition to food. Surfactants are used to get the active ingredients into the plant, which is engineered to withstand the herbicide, so it doesn’t die when sprayed. The herbicide and surfactant are sprayed directly on the crops and significant quantities are then taken up into the plant.  The weeds die — or used to!

The US Geological survey noted that while 20 million pounds/year of glyphosate was used prior to GE crops (1992), 280 million pounds/year was used in 2012, largely as a result of glyphosate-resistant crops. In the U.S. alone, glyphosate-resistant weeds were estimated to occupy an area of over 24 million hectares as of 2012. This is a failed and unsustainable technology anywhere, and for India it will be disastrous.

The stated objective by the regulators themselves for HT mustard is that the two HT parent lines (barnase and barstar each with the bar gene), will be similarly employed in India’s best (non-GMO) varieties to create new crosses resulting in any number of HT hybrid mustard DMH crops. Thus, Indian mustard varieties (non-GMO) in a very short time will be contaminated and Indian mustard agriculture (which is non-GMO) destroyed.

The regulators claim that GMO HT hybrid DMH 11 will create a significant dent in India’s oilseeds imports. Given that GMO mustard has no gene for yield enhancement, is significantly out yielded by non-GMO mustard hybrids and varieties, this is indeed a magic bean produced from thin air by the regulators, defying all logic and commonsense. Mustard Oil imports are virtually zero (ie rapeseed mustard as distinct from canola rape oil which is also illegal GMO).

The story of the current steep decline in oilseeds production in Indian farming must be laid at the door of a wrong policy decision that comprehensively ignored national and farmers’ interest to severely slash import duties on oilseeds of around 300% to virtually zero. In 1993-94, India imported just 3% of our oil-seed demand; we were self- sufficient. Then we happily bowed to WTO pressure and now import almost 70% of our demand in edible oils! (Devinder Sharma).  This is the real reason for our heavy import bill.

The TEC recommend a double bar on GM Mustard — for being an HT crop and also in a centre of mustard diversification and/or origin. It is hoped that our government will recognise the dangers of GMOs, bar HT crops, including GM mustard, and impose a moratorium on all Bt crops.

Aruna Rodrigues

Lead Petitioner in the GMO PIL filed in 2005 for a moratorium on GM crops.

Aruna Rodrigues is Lead Petitioner in the PIL in the Supreme Court of India for a moratorium on GMOs since 2005. She is also part of a dedicated group of researchers into COVID-19, its policies, vaccines and health impacts. She can be reached at: arunarod@gmail.com. Read other articles by Aruna.

Gaza: Israel turning aid centres into mass death traps

June 3, 2025

MEMO

Palestinians flock to the aid distribution in the Morag Corridor on the third day towards the Northwest of Rafah, Gaza on May 29, 2025. [Doaa Albaz – Anadolu Agency]


The Gaza Government Media Office (GMO) has accused the Israeli occupation of converting humanitarian aid centres — established under a US-Israeli initiative — into deadly ambush sites, calling them “mass death traps” used to execute civilians under the pretense of humanitarian relief, the Palestinian Information Centre reported.

Over the course of just eight days, 102 Palestinians have been killed and 490 wounded while trying to access newly established aid sites.

In a statement issued today, the GMO described what it called a “repeated, deliberate massacre” near one such centre in Rafah. According to the report, Israeli occupation forces opened fire on civilians waiting for aid, killing 27 and injuring over 90 others.

The incident is part of what the GMO described as a broader, systematic policy. Since 27 May, when these so-called aid centres began operating in Rafah and Wadi Gaza, they have been the site of repeated attacks.

The GMO said these centres are “operated by the Israeli occupation and an American security company” and are devoid of any independent humanitarian oversight.

“These sites are nothing short of baited killing grounds. Civilians, driven by starvation under an imposed siege and famine, are lured to these areas and then gunned down in cold blood. The project masks itself as a humanitarian effort, but in reality, it is a tool of genocide carried out in full view of the world,” the statement added.

The GMO condemned the use of food as a weapon, labeling it a direct violation of international humanitarian law. It placed full responsibility for these incidents on both the Israeli occupation and the US administration, which it accused of actively supporting the operation — politically and logistically.

Citing Article 2 of the 1948 Genocide Convention, asserting that the killings at these aid centres meet the legal threshold for genocide, the GMO said: “The deliberate use of aid as a weapon to kill, starve, and displace civilians amounts to the intentional destruction of a people.”

It called on the United Nations, the Security Council, and global human rights organisations to urgently intervene. Among its demands are the immediate opening of official crossings — free from Israeli interference — for the entry of humanitarian aid, and the administration of aid distribution through neutral international agencies.

The GMO also rejected the creation of so-called “buffer zones” or “humanitarian corridors” established by the Israeli occupation army, calling them “blood traps designed to herd civilians into mass killing zones.”

Concluding its remarks, the GMO warned of the deadly consequences of ongoing international silence, stating that this inaction is tantamount to complicity and a green light for further atrocities.

“The continued massacres, carried out in broad daylight and in front of the world’s cameras, are a stain on the conscience of humanity,” the statement read. “This is genocide — unfolding live, without accountability,” it added.

‘Humanitarian staff’ in Gaza are US intelligence agents engaged in espionage, rights group warns

June 3, 2025

MEMO

Palestinians including women and children living in tents receive food distributed by aid organizations in al Mawasi district of Khan Yunis, Gaza on May 30, 2025. [Ahmed Jihad Ibrahim Al-arini – Anadolu Agency]


Personnel working for the US-backed Gaza Humanitarian Foundation (GHF) are affiliated with the American military and intelligence services, the Coalition of Lawyers for Palestine – Switzerland (ASAP) has warned.

The group said the GHF is carrying out a mission aimed at collecting data that would enable control over Gaza.

Majed Abusalama, head of the coalition, wrote on Facebook yesterday: “The foundation is working with a security company called Safe Reach Solutions, which is in the process of hiring a large number of US military personnel, retired soldiers, and experts in visual intelligence and security. They are being hired on renewable contracts of three to six months, with a daily salary of $1,000, to collect data aimed at managing or controlling Gaza, as well as facilitating current aid distribution.”




Abusalama added that, when residents arrive at aid distribution sites, “people in Gaza are shocked by the number of quadcopters, other types of drones, and surveillance units set up around the area particularly in Rafah.”

He said that one of the company’s main objectives is to “study the behaviour and reactions of the exhausted population at close range, and to collect extensive biometric data and digital identities of a large number of Gaza’s residents.”

He explained that the company aims to process this visual data to identify people Israel claims are persons of interest.

Abusalama also pointed out that many of the foundation’s employees have extensive experience in visual intelligence analysis, operating on the front lines, and conducting field security missions inside Gaza. He said they are also responsible for “ensuring that no armed Palestinian enters the aid distribution sites.”

Opinion

A legal perspective on the day after in Gaza

June 3, 2025

MEMO

Palestinians living at the Nuseirat Refugee Camp, try to continue their lives in a damaged school building as Palestinians, deprived of basic necessities such as shelter, food, and clean water, struggle to survive amid the shadows of Israeli attacks in Deir al-Balah, Gaza on June 2, 2025. [Moiz Salhi – Anadolu Agency]

Discussing the “day after” in Gaza should not be limited to clearing the rubble or reconstruction. Rather, it is a moral and legal question that imposes itself on the region and the entire international community. The day after should involve trials, similar to the Nuremberg trials that followed World War II after the persecution of Jews in Germany and Poland.

In Nuremberg, the evidence was based on bones, clothing, and survivor testimonies. In Gaza, the evidence is photographed and documented in audio and video, on every mobile phone, recording the systematic genocide that the Israeli occupation committed against Palestinians.

What has happened in Gaza since 7 October, 2023, cannot be described as war, as wars have rules. What has happened and is happening is a genocidal war, with clear intent and systematic action. It is an unprecedented humanitarian and legal tragedy in the modern era. In order for the international system to regain its balance, real accountability is essential, one that restores justice to the victims and puts an end to the policies of impunity.

The Nuremberg trials were not just a trial of Nazi-era leaders; they established new legal values, most notably the principle of individual responsibility for international crimes and the eradication of immunity for anyone, regardless of their position. This is what the “day after” in Gaza should look like.

Israeli impunity: Genocide, occupation and apartheid

The actions of Benjamin Netanyahu’s government, which included the most extremist members of Israeli society, such as Smotrich and Ben-Gvir, surpassed Hitler’s brutality, employing the most modern tools of genocide. Gas ovens were not used, but rather advanced American bombs to incinerate people and farms before the lenses of the world’s cameras, in a live broadcast documenting the deliberate mass killing of civilians, the use of starvation as a weapon of war, and the systematic destruction of hospitals, schools, and camps for the displaced. All of these actions are war crimes, as defined by the International Court of Justice (ICJ) and the International Criminal Court (ICC).

Live documentation of genocide is also a form of state terrorism, as defined by law. Terrorism is not limited to killing but includes spreading terror and intimidating people with the threat of a similar fate. When the Israeli defence minister said he was “fighting human animals”, he wasn’t just referring to the residents of Gaza, but to all Arabs, as evidenced by the slogans of Israeli demonstrators chanting “Death to the Arabs.”

The real “day after” cannot merely be a political or humanitarian phase; it must be a legal and moral moment, separating the victim from the killer, holding them accountable rather than equating them.

“October 7” has been spun by the West as Israel’s “September 11,” even though the victims of America’s occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan are hundreds of times more in number than the victims of September 11, 2001. However, this date has been used to justify the genocide of Palestinians and the policies of ethnic cleansing and settlement.

October 7 cannot be separated from the context of the comprehensive military occupation that has been ongoing for decades. Under international law, resistance to occupation, including the use of force against military targets, is a legitimate right, as defined by the Geneva Conventions of 1949 and their Additional Protocol I of 1977, which went into effect in December 1978.

The Israeli response after October 7 went beyond the limits of law and humanity, using excessive and destructive force against civilians, destroying infrastructure, and imposing a blockade and starvation lasting nearly two years. This is the collective punishment of an entire nation. It is morally and legally unacceptable to liken acts of resistance under occupation to these widespread crimes.

READ: How humanitarian aid became a tool to empty Gaza

The major question today is not one regarding rebuilding Gaza, but rather regarding justice for Gaza. The Arab world can move forward through three main avenues: the International Criminal Court, which has jurisdiction over the Palestinian territories and opened an investigation in 2014 but faces political pressure that obstructs justice. This requires international support to expedite the investigation and ensure accountability.

The second avenue is establishing a special international tribunal – such as in Yugoslavia and Rwanda – to prosecute the crimes committed in Gaza within an independent and binding legal framework.

The third is activating the principle of universal jurisdiction, so that criminals can be tried before courts in countries that permit it, such as Belgium and Spain. This is a realistic avenue that has proven effective in previous cases.

Justice is not limited to governments, as it requires Arab civil society to document crimes, collect evidence, and submit files to support accountability processes. There is no peace without justice.

The anti-justice camp claims that accountability hinders “peace” efforts, but past experience proves that settlements which are not based on justice do not produce lasting peace, but merely temporary ceasefires. In Rwanda, reconciliation did not begin until accountability was achieved, and in Bosnia, stability was achieved only after the trial of military leaders.

Justice and the law are the foundations of the Palestinian state that Arabs aspire to establish. There is no state without a legal system. The “day after” in Gaza is not a moment of physical reconstruction, but rather a legal and moral moment. If the world fails to serve justice to the victims of the genocide in Gaza, it will make the idea of ​​peace between Arabs and Israel difficult.

This article first appeared in Arabic in Al-Sharq Al-Awsat on 2 June 2025

The views expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Middle East Monitor.

Israel using drones to terrorise Palestinians in Gaza, rights group warns

June 3, 2025 

MEMO

A picture taken on June 5, 2018 shows an Israeli quadcopter drone flying over Palestinian demonstrations near the border with Israel east of Khan Yunis in the southern Gaza. [Photo by SAID KHATIB/AFP via Getty Images]

The Israeli occupation army has intensified its use of quadcopter drones as tools of psychological intimidation, surveillance, and direct killing of Palestinians in Gaza, Euro-Med Human Rights Monitor has reported.

Multiple incidents have been documented in which quadcopters were used “to broadcast eerie, distressing sounds deliberately intended to incite panic among civilians,” the rights group explained. In other cases, “quadcopters entered crowded homes at night, hovered within rooms, filmed sleeping families, and then exited through windows, leaving behind deep psychological trauma.”

Euro-Med Human Rights Monitor’s field team documented the frequent low-altitude flights of Israeli quadcopters, which would deliberately hover outside windows, in corridors of shelters, and above displaced persons’ tents. The drones would circle slowly before broadcasting disturbing sounds “specifically designed to terrify and psychologically exhaust civilians,” it said.

These included the sounds of dogs savaging children, screams of children in pain, cries from elderly people, and women ululating in grief, alongside constant ambulance sirens designed to suggest massacres were occurring nearby.

“These were not random noises. Rather, they are part of a deliberate, layered tactic meant to drain civilians mentally, pressure them to flee, and simultaneously lure them into deadly traps.”

The drones prompt “terrified civilians to approach windows, balconies, or leave their tents—seeking clarity or escape. As soon as one appears, the drone may open fire, turning a basic human response into a calculated act of murder. The quadcopter becomes both a psychological weapon and a physical one,” it added.

Mohammed Salameh, a resident of Al-Remal in central Gaza, told the rights group: “These drones have conditioned us not to respond to cries for help because we simply can’t tell if it’s a real emergency or a trap designed to lure us into being shot. We’re paralysed by doubt and fear.”

In several cases, quadcopters invaded civilian homes, displaced persons’ tents, and shelters at night, hovered over sleeping families, recorded them before leaving.

One woman from Gaza City said: “I was sleeping with my children … As we lay on the ground in the dark, I heard the unmistakable sound of a drone. I opened my eyes to find it hovering above us. I panicked but kept still and whispered the shahada, expecting it to fire. I kept blinking, and it remained there, likely filming us, before exiting through the same window.”

She concluded: “Even though it didn’t shoot, the fear was overwhelming. Now, I dread going to sleep. I fear the darkness, the windows, the doors — any opening to the outside. I no longer feel safe. At any moment, these drones can invade our homes, film us, or simply open fire.”

The relentless psychological stress experienced by Palestinians in Gaza as a result of Israel’s use of such tactics, Euro-Med explained, “is manifesting in severe neurological and mental deterioration across various forms: chronic insomnia, recurring nightmares, sudden emotional breakdowns, inability to concentrate, aggressive behaviour, and cycles of deep depression or complete emotional numbness.” These effects are particularly pronounced among the most vulnerable groups: children, women, and the elderly.

The Israeli army’s use of quadcopter drones for intimidation and direct targeting of civilians is not random but forms part of a documented and repeated pattern. Last year the rights group reported that Israel had used drones to broadcast cries for help by women and babies to lure and shoot Palestinians in Gaza.

 

Killing giant ragweed just got harder for some Wisconsin farmers

University of Illinois College of Agricultural, Consumer and Environmental Sciences

 

image: 

From left: Felipe Faleco, University of Wisconsin-Madison, hands a bag of PPO-resistant giant ragweed seeds to Pat Tranel, University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign. The team identified the first cases of multiple-herbicide-resistant giant ragweed in Wisconsin and the first ever incidence of Group 14-resistance in these weeds.

view more 

Credit: Rodrigo Werle, University of Wisconsin-Madison

URBANA, Ill -- When giant ragweed takes hold in a crop field, the towering weed reduces yield and sends plumes of its famously allergy-inducing pollen into the air. There are few tools available to thwart the menace, especially for farmers growing non-GMO soybeans. Now, some Wisconsin farmers are left with even fewer options. 

New research from the University of Wisconsin-Madison and the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign shows some giant ragweed populations in Wisconsin have evolved resistance to a crucial class of post-emergence herbicides known as protoporphyrinogen oxidase (PPO) inhibitors (Group 14 herbicides).  

“It’s hard to control giant ragweed with pre-emergence herbicides, in part because it's a larger seed and can emerge from greater depths. So farmers depend on post-emergence products. For folks growing non-GMO soybean, those POST products are ALS and PPO, and we already have fairly widespread ALS resistance in giant ragweed,” said study co-author Pat Tranel, professor in the Department of Crop Sciences in the College of Agricultural, Consumer and Environmental Sciences (ACES) at Illinois. 

“Losing PPOs means you're basically out of chemical options,” he added.

The results won’t surprise some Wisconsin farmers. Study co-author Rodrigo Werle, associate professor and Extension weed scientist at UW-Madison, says farmers started mentioning in 2018 that PPOs weren’t working as well. 

“We thought they had issues with application timing, that they were missing the ideal window for application,” Werle said. “But the growers we were working with are very knowledgeable and did everything by the book. Small plants were regrowing after being sprayed, which can be a sign of resistance.” 

The research team asked farmers to collect and send seeds from plants in affected fields. 

“We evaluated fomesafen (a PPO inhibitor) at 1x and 3x the label rate, and a lot of plants survived. Then we evaluated the dose response for fomesafen and lactofen (another PPO). We determined one population had almost 30-fold resistance to fomesafen and almost four-fold resistance to lactofen,” said lead study author Felipe Faleco, a doctoral student at UW-Madison.  

Faleco let plants that survived the 1x rate of fomesafen grow to maturity, then collected seeds and handed them off to Tranel, who had previously determined the molecular basis of ALS and PPO resistance in common ragweed, a close relative of the giant variety.

“We sequenced the genes for the PPO target enzyme and found the same mutation that we’d seen in common ragweed,” Tranel said. “There were really no other mutations, so that is likely the basis of resistance in giant ragweed, too.”

Tranel’s group went farther, developing a molecular tool diagnostic labs can use to detect PPO resistance, offering farmers quick answers.

The Wisconsin team also tested for resistance to acetolactate synthase (ALS) inhibitors and glyphosate, finding four populations with resistance to ALS and two populations with resistance to glyphosate. These types of resistance had already been documented in giant ragweed, but the team also found one population with resistance to both.

“For us in Wisconsin, this is the first time we’ve documented two types of resistance in a single population in giant ragweed,” Werle said. “It shows that it’s not only waterhemp that is evolving multiple resistance. We also have some other weeds we have to keep an eye on.”

Resistance to glyphosate affects GMO soybean growers, who turn to PPO and ALS herbicides in those cases. Similarly, non-GMO growers who can’t use glyphosate rely on these chemistries.  The authors say with ALS and PPO resistance — essentially, zero chemical options — more non-GMO growers may switch to GMO soybeans.

“Farmers plant non-GMO soybeans for the premiums; there’s a financial reason to go that route even though weed control is more difficult,” Werle said. “But if a farmer knows they're dealing with this type of resistance, that could prevent them from growing a non-GMO crop in a sustainable or a profitable way.”

In addition to the potential impacts on farm management and profits, the findings matter for allergy sufferers. 

“As farmers struggle with control, more ragweeds are going to escape and shed pollen,” Tranel said. “So if you're living in a semi-rural area with corn and soybean fields around, it’s likely there's going to be more pollen in the air.”

The study, “Resistance to protoporphyrinogen oxidase inhibitors in giant ragweed (Ambrosia trifida),” is published in Pest Management Science [DOI: 10.1002/ps.8349]. Authors include Felipe Faleco, Filipi Machado, Lucas Bobadilla, Pat Tranel, David Stoltenberg, and Rodrigo Werle. The Wisconsin Soybean Marketing Board supported Faleco’s graduate studies.

---

Journal

Pest Management Science

DOI

10.1002/ps.8349 

Green Blogging

Today is Green Blogging Day. And so in celebration I am linking to my critique of the myth of sustainable capitalism, which is what the dialectical dance of environmentalism and its opposite is all about.

I will be posting some more today on nature and the environment with that little bug up in the left hand corner, which links to the bloggers publishing today.

The right wing attack on Rachel Carson this past summer is a good example of this dialectic. Carson wrote the earliest popular work on ecology and the environment; The Silent Spring. 2007 is the 100th anniversary of her birth. The result of her work led to much needed public education about the dangers of chemicals; especially pesticides. Her work would inspire the ultimate capitalist reformer; Ralph Nader.

The dance of the dialectic is that both those who promote environmentalism and those who oppose environmentalism are both trying to protect capitalism as it is. One group is promoting sustainable capitalism, by restricting and ameliorating its worst aspects, while the other groups opposes any restrictions that would impeded capitalisms unbridled expansion.

Why Brown is the New Green

Brownfield sites are the gaps in urban areas where factories once stood. They cover a significant, if scattered, amount of land in the old industrial areas of East and South East London, stretching far into Essex and Kent along the Thames estuary. Bordered by housing estates and industrial parks, these sites have in some cases been neglected and unused since as far back as the Second World War.

To the disinterested eye they are spare ground, home to nothing but weeds, rubble, burnt-out cars and dumped appliances, and an obvious place to build new homes in a region where housing is so scarce essential workers cannot afford to buy a home.

This policy has long been seen as an environmentally sound way of dealing with the housing crisis. Green belts, areas of countryside surrounding the UK's major cities, were created in the 1950s to stop the spread of urban sprawl, and the government is reluctant to build on them. Filling in the gaps left by defunct industry in urban areas seems like the obvious answer to the problem.

However, naturalists have increasingly noted that brownfield sites not only provide a haven for wildlife, but are amongst the most important ecological sites in England. Furthermore, hard against built-up areas and open for public access, these sites are a valuable resource for England's majority urban population.

In the green belt around London industrial crop farming has created a monoculture more barren for wildlife than the city itself. Made up largely of private land closed to the public, and saturated in pesticides, these EU-subsidised farms cover a disproportionate area of a crowded region.

This was dialectical contradiction was best shown this summer with the Live Earth Concert organized by Al Gore and his capitalist friends.

Out came the forces of the ultimate in consumer capitalist culture; the rock bands last weekend to save the earth.

After saving the starving in Bangladesh, then Ethiopia, and ultimately the African Continent, now the fearless Rock and Roll Inc. (tm) (c) types are out to save the the earth from Climate Change.

Sorry but coming one week after the mud fest that was Glastonbury, the Concert for Princess Di's Trust Fund and the Canada Day concert in Ottawa, and on the same day as Oxfam Canada and End Global poverty were doing a cross Canada gig, well I must be getting jaded.

All I could garner was a ho hum and switched the channel to see the Canadian U20 team lose to the Congo in the FIFA World Cup.

I would take this whole Rock Concert To Save the World a lot more seriously if all that 'energy' output had been created by solar and wind power rather than using power generated by nuclear, coal, hydro, gas and diesel, as living examples of what could and can be done. I would have been a lot more impressed.

Forty years after the first DIY love ins and be ins I expect more than another attempt to recreate Woodstock for a good cause.

And considering how important this issue is in Canada the lack of a venue, or any critical comment from the MSM and pundits,about that over sight, shows how irrelevant Live Earth was.

Like Kyoto, carbon markets, biofuels, and Harpers 'Made in Canada' green plan, Live Earth was another dud.

In fact what is often overlooked by both sides is the fact that Harpers Made in Canada Green Plan is already in effect in Alberta.

Go figure -- a carbon tax crafted right here at home

Don Braid, Calgary Herald

Published: Friday, March 09, 2007

Well, some things you thought you'd never live to see. And one of them is an Alberta carbon tax, imposed by an Alberta government on Alberta energy companies, with the companies quietly nodding acceptance.

That's what the government introduced Thursday -- a surprisingly tough bill that will force companies to reduce their CO2 emissions per barrel by 12 per cent starting July 1, or pay $15 per tonne into a technology fund.

Call it a user fee. Or call it a technology incentive. Please go right ahead.

But what it is, actually, is a tax on carbon users and producers that will fall most heavily on oilsands companies and coal-fired electricity plants.

So it's a carbon tax, the very spectre that made Alberta shudder when the federal Liberals mentioned it.

But this carbon tax has an environmental goal. It will give companies a real incentive to lower emissions, while fostering technology that makes the job easier. And the money stays inside Alberta.

Companies can't escape by lowering production. What counts is emissions per unit, not total emissions. So the tax can be skimmed without bringing the industry to a halt.

Prime Minister Stephen Harper was on hand to announce his own green initiatives when the Alberta bill came out.

He professed not to know what was in it. That may be, but he's sure aware of the politics behind it.

The goal is to paint Harper and Alberta green

Environmentalism is not anti-capitalism it is just another market giving consumers choice.

North America's biggest solar farm set for Ontario

Homeowners look to go off electrical grid- Environmental self-sufficiency driving market

Green process makes brown coal the new black

One of the problems with the environmental lobby that gives its opponents on the right ammunition to use against them is their uses of prohibition as the basis of regulation. For instance the issue of public health. Rather than deal with the toxic emissions that result from capitalist production they ban smoking in public.

Another example of this dialectical dance is Green NGO campaigns against GMO's and the Seal Hunt.

What do Genetically Modified Organisms, genetically modified grains, soya and corn have in common with the seal hunt?

Why the likelihood of them being banned in Canada is zero, nada, zip, not bloody likely.

The same Green NGO's lobby Europe and other countries to ban seal pelts and GMO's.

Except the fact is that both the anti-seal hunt and the anti-GMO campaigns impact on producers, fishers in the case of seals and farmers in the case of GMO's. The majority of canola crops in Canada are GMO.

The reality is that the call for bans on the seal hunt or GMO crops are counterproductive, they harm producers not the State or multinational corporations.

Ban GMO food crops

US Humane Society Asks Americans to Boycott Canadian Seafood on Eve of Seal Hunt

Don't hold your breath for Quebec to act on GMO labelling

The Supreme Capitalist Court in Canada ruled on GMO crops versus farmers rights in the Schmeiser case. It was a significant attack on property rights versus patent rights/intellectual property rights. Something that not only upsets farmers, and anti-GMO activists but should also upset any right thinking libertarian.

Regarding the question of patent rights and the farmer's right to use seed taken from his fields, Monsanto said that because they hold a patent on the gene, and on canola cells containing the gene, they have a legal right to control its use, including the replanting of seed collected from plants with the gene which grew accidentally in someone else's field. Schmeiser insisted his right to save and replant seed from plants that have accidentally grown on his field overrides Monsanto's legal patent rights.

Canadian law does not mention any such "farmer's rights"; the court held that the farmer's right to save and replant seeds are simply the rights of a property owner over his or her property to use it as he or she wishes, and hence the right to use the seeds are subject to the same legal restrictions on use rights that apply in any case of ownership of property, including restrictions arising from patents in particular. That is to say, patent rights take priority of the right of the owner of physical property to use his property, and the entire point of a patent is to limit what the owner of physical property may do with that property, by forbidding him or her from using it to duplicate, produce or use a patented invention without permission of the patent owner. Overriding the rights of the physical property owner for the protection of the intellectual property owner is the explicit purpose of the Patent Act. As property rights are not constitutional rights they do not override statutes such as the Patent Act.

In the U.S. on the other hand they have had some success with challenging Monsanto.

Monsanto, its seed distributors and growers stand to lose up to $250 million if the alfalfa, which was designed to survive the company's Roundup herbicide, is taken off the market for the two years it takes to complete the study, the company said in court papers filed late on Friday.

Earlier this month, U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer halted the sale of the modified alfalfa at the request of farmers, environmentalists and consumer advocates who say that it could harm the U.S. economy and the environment.

The judge voided the U.S. Department of Agriculture's 2005 approval of Roundup Ready Alfalfa, finding the agency had not conducted a full environmental impact statement. Breyer banned seed sales and gave farmers until March 30 to plant seeds they had already purchased.

Alfalfa, a fodder crop pollinated by bees and wind, is among the most widely grown crops in the United States, along with corn, soybeans and wheat.

The Center for Food Safety, which is among the groups that sought the injunction, said Breyer's order marks the first time a federal court has overturned a USDA approval of a biotech seed and halted planting.

The Center and other plaintiffs have argued that the biotech alfalfa could create super weeds resistant to herbicides, cause farmers to lose export business and contaminate natural and organic alfalfa.

They also alleged that Monsanto could try to force farmers whose crops were contaminated with Roundup Ready Alfalfa to pay for the company's patented gene technology whether they wanted it or not.

But unfortunately many of these campaigns are another form of capitalism, that of fund raising for Green NGO's.

Like Greenpeace's recent anti-Tar Sands campaign, they have no possibility of realistically closing the tar sands but they gain funding for their endeavours. Nor does the campaign effectively challenge capitalism, it merely appears to workers and citizens as being an outrageous publicity campaign. And one that limits its educational value by being deliberately provocative. In doing so it discredits any alternatives to capitalism or discussion of them it makes any such alternative appear unrealistic.

Finally one only has to look at the Canadian Green Party to see that environmentalism is not anti-capitalism. Their recent increase in popular support in the Ontario election showed that it came from disgruntled Progressive Conservatives. In fact Green politics have been embraced by conservatives and the extreme right.

For a truly sustainable environment one must oppose capitalism and offer an alternative; self managed socialist democracy.

The Ecology of Work

Environmentalism can't succeed until it confronts the destructive nature of modern work—and supplants it

by Curtis White

For instance, as a matter of conscience we should be willing to say that the so-called greening of corporate America is not as much about the desire to protect nature as it is about the desire to protect capitalism itself. Environmentalists are, on the whole, educated and successful people, many of whom have prospered within corporate capitalism. They’re not against it. They simply seek to establish a balance between the needs of the economy (as they blandly put it) and the needs of the natural world. For both capitalism and environmentalism, there is a hard division between land set aside for nature and land devoted to production.

SEE:

Junque Journalism

Blogging Green Day

Find blog posts, photos, events and more off-site about:
climate change, environment, global warming,
Kyoto, ecology, IPCC,
global warming, inconvenient truth, environment, green capitalism,