The Mexican government is likely to authorize the cultivation of genetically engineered (GE) corn in Mexico. And until now Mexican citizens, with the help of organisations like Greenpeace,  have managed to prevent agribusiness giants like Monsanto, DuPont and Dow AgroSciences from gaining approval in Mexico for genetically engineered corn.

But this looks like it could change.

The agriculture ministry in Mexico may allow foreign companies to plant genetically engineered corn on 2.4 million hectares of land.

Mexico is the birthplace of corn, what is known as the “centre of origin” where the original genetic pool of worldwide corn is preserved and should be protected from genetic contamination.

Why?

It’s like a genetic storehouse. If current corn varieties planted on a large scale around the world were affected by a fatal disease, it is essential to be able to go back to the centre of origin and find a variety resistant to that disease. There are risks to our food security if planting of GE corn in Mexico goes ahead. If Mexico is contaminated with GE corn, and if it reduces the existing biodiversity of corn, it might limit our ability to find a suitable replacement.

Recommendations to protect Mexico’s corn have come from many quarters. Following an official visit to Mexico, Olivier de Schutter, the UN Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food,recommended in a January 2012 report that the Mexican President should reinstate the moratorium on GE corn, both because of its impact on biodiversity and on farmers’ rights.

The Mexican government ignored this recommendation.

Greenpeace Mexico asked its citizens to send an email to the President of Mexico. Over 30,000 have already responded.

Now it is your turn to support the cause and make your voice heard.

Please sign our online petition to the Mexican government against GE corn.

Gracias!

The next time you see a bee buzzing around, it’s worthwhile remembering that much of the food we eat depends significantly on pollination these insects provide. But bees and other pollinators are declining globally, particularly in North America and Europe, putting this essential role in doubt.

In the US, the loss of 30-40% of commercial honeybee colonies since 2006 has been linked to “colony collapse disorder”, a syndrome characterized by disappearing worker bees. Since 2004, losses of honeybee colonies have left North America with fewer managed pollinators than at any time in the last 50 years. In recent winters, bees colony mortality in Europe has averaged about 20% (but up to 53% for some countries).

Without insect pollination, about one third of the crops we eat would either have to be pollinated by other means, or face considerably lower yields. In all, up to 75% of our crops would suffer some decrease in productivity. Undoubtedly, the most nutritious and interesting crops in our diet (including many key fruits and vegetables), together with some crops used as fodder in meat and dairy production, would be badly affected by a decline in insect pollinators. The most recent estimates value pollination services at €265bn.

And the problem could become even bigger as the world moves progressively towards growing more crops that are dependent on bee (and other insect) pollinators. So why are some policy-makers still trying to delay actions designed to save the farmer’s smartest natural allies?

A significant first step

Europe took a significant step in the right direction this Monday as a majority of EU member states voted for a partial ban of three bee-killer pesticides. After the fierce lobbying by the powerful pesticide industry, the vote was a vindication. The bee-killer companies have lost this battle; and the bees have won – for now! This is a success that environmentalists, beekeepers and the considerable amount of European citizens that got involved in the related campaigns can be proud of.

The decision still has to be formally confirmed by the European Commission. But it cannot ignore that there is overwhelming scientific, political and public support for a ban. Tonio Borg, EU Health and Consumer Commissioner already made clear that ‘the Commission will go ahead with its text in the coming weeks’ , in light of the majority support from the member states in Monday’s vote. Since member states failed to reach a qualified majority to either endorse or oppose a ban in two consecutive votes, the Commission now has the right move ahead on its own proposal.

This is good news for the bees and for the farmers of Europe. This EU-wide decision is the world’s first region wide ban on bee-killer pesticides. It will restrict the use of three neonicotinoids (clothianidin, imidacloprid and thiametoxam) for seed treatment, soil application (granules) and spray treatment on plants and cereals attractive to bees.

Exposing the culprits: Bayer and Syngenta

Remarkably enough, the three neonicotinoids are best-selling blockbuster products manufactured by the agri-giants Syngenta and Bayer. Both these companies conducted an imposing PR campaign furiously trying to protect their profits with no regard to the high environmental costs. They ignored scientific evidence on the toxicity of the pesticides in question and tried hard to delay the ban.

Greenpeace recently exposed their lies on several occasions: the organisation hung a giant banner on Syngenta’s headquarters in Switzerland, attended Bayer and Syngenta Annual General Assemblies in Germany and Switzerland; and organized a symbolic funeral ceremony for a queen bee in front of Bayer’s headquarters in the Netherlands.

An incomplete ban

However, this is truly only a first step, as this ban is incomplete and full of potential flaws.

Firstly, it is only a temporary ban, and two years may not be enough to guarantee that the health of bees and other pollinators will improve. Secondly, the restrictions only apply to certain uses on crops: the ban is far from comprehensive. Thirdly, the neonicotinoids are very persistent and may have built up over the years in soils and be present in other plants visited by bees. Even uses of neonicotinoids in closed greenhouses have been associated with heavy concentrations in aquatic systems causing losses of aquatic insect biodiversity as evidenced by a recent Dutch study .So it is far from clear that even with the ban in place nectar and pollen will safe for bees and other insects.

In addition, more bee-harming pesticides need to be removed from the market. Greenpeace believes that the EU must go further and implement a wider ban covering all uses of neonicotinoids and all agricultural sectors rather than the limited action the EC has proposed. This should also include all of seven-priority bee-killer pesticides identified by Greenpeace in its ‘Bees in decline’ report.

Four of the seven are not neonicotinoids and we will keep strongly campaigning to remove these pesticides from the market.

This would be a crucial first step to start a move away from the current chemically intensive agricultural system. Even then, only a shift to modern ecological farming practices can be the long-term solution to save the bees, and preserve European agriculture. Our work has only begun.

A coal ash impoundment at TVA Kingston Fossil Fuel Power Plant in Tennessee failed in 2008, spilling five times the volume of the Deepwater Horizon oil disaster. It was the worst in US history. The next year, the EPA, overseeing the clean-up operations, shipped 4 million tons of toxic coal ash by rail to an Alabama landfill in a region called the Black Belt.  The Black Belt, birthplace of the Civil Rights Movement, has “the richest soil and the poorest people.”

Coal ash – the toxic waste byproduct of coal-fired power generation that contains mercury, arsenic, and selenium – is the second largest industrial waste stream in the United States, however it is not regulated as hazardous waste, even though the heavy metals leach into groundwater and travel through the air.

In 2009,  the EPA approved a permit to dump the Kingston ash in a landfill in Uniontown, a town of about 1600, where 88 percent of residents are African American.   The landfill is directly adjacent to homes, so residents  – most on well water– look out their kitchen windows at 60 foot high piles of uncovered coal ash.   After the arrival of the ash, residents reported health effects consistent with heavy metal exposures, such as respiratory distress, headaches, dizziness and skin disorders.  In 2012, 54 residents filed a complaint with the EPA last year, alleging that the Alabama Department of Environmental Management’s disposal of the ash in the Arrowhead landfill was a discriminatory act against a predominantly African American population, in violation Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.    One citizen group, Black Belt Citizens Fighting for Health and Justice, reached out to regional and statewide groups to start gathering health and environmental quality data. They used existing networks to educate themselves about coal ash, holding meetings around kitchen tables, and they spoke out to decision-makers. Community health surveys are now underway, and folks are learning how to use the data to continue making change.

Larry Steidle stands near boats at his Blue Springs Marina on Watts Bar Lake downstream of the Tennessee Valley Authority's Kingston Fossil Plant a year after a million gallons of toxic coal fly ash slurry contaminated the area.

Drawing a line in the ‘Selma chalk’

Today, the coal ash is still in the landfill,  but another group of Uniontown residents are agitating around a different issue.  Across town from the landfill, a wastewater treatment plant is in the process of a major upgrade, which includes a new spray field for treated sewage to seep into the ground. Residents feel that there have not been adequate communication or input into the placement of the spray field, and are joining with the residents who fought the coal ash. The wastewater system badly needs the upgrades to protect residents and watersheds from leaks and stormwater overflows, and city and county officials worked hard to secure federal grants and municipal bonds to pay for the upgrades, but for residents, the placement of the spray field near homes is a line in the sand that is not just about wastewater, but transparency and dignity.

If you are standing by the Arrowhead landfill, as I was yesterday, you might note that this line in the sand is more like a line in the chalk. ‘Selma chalk’ is the term for the limestone underlying the region, and it  gives the ground a white, sandy appearance.  Overlaying the chalk is the fertile, black soil that gives the Black Belt its name and is the reason this region became a cotton-producing region. My colleague and I had stayed in Selma the night before, in what had once been the biggest city in Alabama and heart of the cotton region, and is now a sleepy town with ghosts of the civil rights movement. In Uniontown, small farms dot the landscape, and we watch cows grazing adjacent to the coal ash in the landfill as we take water samples.  A spring breeze ruffled meadows of wildflowers quietly; we notice how coal-fired power plants are often so noisy but here the toxic coal ash waste lies silent.

Speaking out

That night, we attended a community forum for residents of Uniontown to ask questions of the engineer in charge of the wastewater project.  In a windowless auditorium in the municipal building, the engineer stood behind a podium front of more than 50 residents on folding chairs armed with notes and questions. The engineer answered pre-submitted questions, often appearing bored, irritated, or disinterested.   My stomach was in knots as the engineer peered over his glasses at the audience, and I noticed his glances at my white colleagues and I, as if he could say certain things only to us.  He chastised audience members for asking questions out of turn, and sighed dismissively when residents pressed him for more complete answers.    Twice, the engineer mentioned that he was a volunteer and on his own time, though the residents were on their own time as well.

Debris and cenospheres float on the surface of the Clinch River downstream from the Tennessee Valley Authority/s Kingston Fossil Plant

Most residents were concerned that they hadn’t been notified, and many had questions about the various processes of the spray field.  One resident, a catfish farmer whose land lies adjacent to the spray field, asked if the engineer would sign a guarantee that the spray field would not negatively impact his catfish investments. Reluctant to give a guarantee, the engineer said that they would take care of issues as they arose.   The farmer pressed, asking how residents were supposed to know their safety was being guaranteed, and the engineer said, “I can’t guarantee it.  It is what it is.”

There was an audible gasp in the audience. Laid bare here, as exposed as a seam of Selma chalk, was the only guarantee he could make: the spray field would happen, and everything else  — health, safety, justice – was a gamble. This was the legacy of the region.

Greenpeace activists at coal ash hearings in Louisville.

To be clear, Uniontown and all of Perry County need these wastewater upgrades, and city and county officials  at the community forum insist that they are responsible for citizen’s safety and health. But for people buying bottled water with a fixed income because they can’t trust their taps, “things will be fine” isn’t enough. After the meeting, some residents told us that they weren’t usually so boisterous during community meetings, but we weren’t judging meeting decorum. Grassroots power is not always polite, and in fact is often a bumpy ride as folks sort through the superficial issues of permits and notices to uncover the heart of the matter.

What my colleague and I felt powerfully in Uniontown was that campaign work on coal waste  intersects with peoples’ lives in a way that means it is also about justice . The waste stream of coal ash is not directly linked to a wastewater treatment plant, but for residents whose watersheds flow through both, it’s the same undrinkable water.   And the convergence here for citizens fighting wastewater and coal ash  may be the momentum of grassroots power that can change the course of community health in Perry County.

Greenpeace activists unfurl a huge banner reading 'Syngenta Pesticides Kill Bees' from the headquarters of the agrochemical company, Syngenta.

Brussels – A clear majority of EU countries have supported the European Commission proposal to temporarily ban three pesticides that are scientifically shown to be harmful to bees: imidacloprid and clothianidin, produced by chemical company Bayer, and thiamethoxam, produced by Syngenta.

Greenpeace EU agriculture policy director Marco Contiero said: “Today’s vote makes it crystal clear that there is overwhelming scientific, political and public support for a ban. Those countries opposing a ban have failed. Now, the Commission must draw the only conclusion possible and immediately halt the use of these pesticides as a first step to protect European food production and ecosystems. Any further delay would mean giving in to the lobbying muscle of Bayer and Syngenta.”

The three pesticides are all neonicotinoids, pesticides that are used to coat seeds before germination, added to soil or sprayed on plants.

In scientific reports published earlier this year, which triggered the Commission proposal, the European Food Safety Authority said the three neonicotinoids posed “high acute risks” to honeybees in certain crop uses [1]. Extensive peer-reviewed scientific research has linked even low doses of neonicotinoids with neurological and other physiological damage on bees, as well as with disrupted foraging patterns and damage to immune systems [2].

The European Environment Agency also recently issued a report warning against the consequences of inaction on these pesticides [3].

Ignoring scientific evidence on the toxicity of such pesticides, companies like Syngenta and Bayer have been running an intensive lobbying and public relations campaign in an attempt to delay a ban [4], said Greenpeace. Other pesticides produced by these and other companies also pose a severe threat to bees and other pollinators. A recent Greenpeace report, Bees in Decline, identified seven bee-killing pesticides produced by Syngenta, Bayer, BASF and other companies, four of which are not neonicotinoids [5]. Greenpeace is campaigning to remove these pesticides from the market as a crucial first step to start a move away from industrial farming in Europe.

Partial bans of neonicotinoids are already in place in Italy, France, Germany and Slovenia, with no significant negative impacts on agricultural production.

Greenpeace European bees campaign coordinator Matthias Wüthrich said: “Bee decline is one of the most obvious and visible effects of a failed industrial farming model, which contaminates our environment and destroys farmers’ smartest natural ally – pollinators. European policymakers should shift funding away from chemical-intensive agriculture and promote ecological farming.”

Notes:

[1] European Food Safety Authority, ‘EFSA identifies risks to bees from neonicotinoids, January 2013.

[2] Science: Neonicotinoid Pesticide Reduces Bumble Bee Colony Growth and Queen Production, A Common Pesticide Decreases Foraging Success and Survival in Honey Bees; Nature: Combined pesticide exposure severely affects individual- and colony-level traits in bees.

[3] European Environment Agency, January 2013 , Late lessons from early warnings: science, precaution, innovation II, Chapter 16, Seed‑dressing systemic insecticides and honeybees.

[4] Corporate Europe Observatory, Pesticides against pollinators; ‘Private letters reveal Syngenta and Bayer’s furious lobbying against EU measures to save bees’, 11 April 2013.

[5] Greenpeace Science Unit, April 2013, Bees in Decline.

Days before the key EU vote to ban bee-killer pesticides, Greenpeace is attending the annual general meeting (AGM) of Syngenta in Basel, Switzerland, in order to alert shareholders to the company’s role in the global decline in bee populations and ask them to challenge the chair of Syngenta board to stop marketing these deadly products.

Activists and beekeepers are demonstraing outside the shareholders’ assembly, while representatives of Greenpeace and the European Beekeeping Coordination are directing questions to the Syngenta board about the reputational and financial risk faced by the company in light of the probable ban. Last month, the European Commission put forward a proposal for a ban on bee-killer pesticides produced by Syngenta and Bayer.

But, even though peer-reviewed scientific studies say that several factors lead to bees decline (namely climate change, diseases, parasites, monocultures, loss of habitats and the widespread use of pesticides), Syngenta is trying to make us believe that bee populations can recover if we mainly fight one of the factors: the varroa mite. According to Syngenta, “there is (…) no direct correlation between neonicotinoids use and poor bee health, although a correlation can be drawn between bee losses and the presence of the Varroa mite”.

But bee decline is more complex and all factors that contribute to bee decline must be addressed. How long will Mr. Martin Taylor, Chairman of Syngenta, deny scientific evidence showing that Syngenta’s blockbuster pesticide thiamethoxam is linked to the global bee decline according to peer-reviewed scientific studies?  Bees are running out of time.

A first crucial step that needs to be taken right now is banning bee-killer pesticides.  On 15 March, a majority of EU countries backed a Commission proposal to ban three neonicotinoid pesticides (including Syngenta’s thiamethoxam, and Bayer’s clothianidin and imidacloprid) at a vote but failed to achieve the necessary qualified majority.  On the 29th of April, EU member states will vote for a second time through an appalate body composed by higher member states representatives. If the vote failed again because no qualified majority is reached, the European commission has the power to implement a ban.

The ban could enter into force as early as July 2013, once the proposal has been accepted by EU member states or put in place by the Commission, The pesticides industry is mounting a furious lobbying campaign, to avoid a ban and protect its profits at the cost of the bees and pollination. However, such behaviour is against the long term interest of Syngenta’ shareholders and in fact of any human beings, as our food production relies heavily on pollination services provided by bees and other pollinators.

Greenpeace asks the EU Member states to vote in favour of the commission’s plan which is a welcome first step to address the harmful effects of pesticides on bee. However, the commission has also to endorse ambitious Europe-wide action plans to ban all pesticides that are harmful to bees and other vital pollinators. The commission should also shift funding away from chemical-intensive agriculture and promote ecological farming.

While agriculture multinationals like Syngenta and Bayer care only about profits, their bee-killer pesticides put bees and other pollinators at risk. Without bees and their natural pollination global food production would be severely damaged.

The latest report by Greenpeace, “Bees in Decline”, identified seven priority bee-killer pesticides that should be banned due to their toxic effect on bees. The list includes Bayer’s imidacloprid and clothianidin, Syngenta’s thiamethoxam, BASF’s fipronil and chlorpyriphos, and cypermethrin and deltamethrin, produced by other pesticides companies.

The elimination of these bee-killers is only the first step in protecting bees and agriculture in Europe. The only long-term solution is a shift away from chemical-intensive agriculture to ecological farming practices.