Azienda Agricola La Torricella

Organic Farmer

Q&A: Non profit organizations that promote sustainable farming in developing nations?

Question by Carly: Non profit organizations that promote sustainable farming in establishing nations?
I’ve been feeling insignificant lately and have been considering of a way to support improve the lives of others. I am hunting to volunteer for some sort of non profit whose focus is sustainable and organic farming in establishing countries or even the united states. I never have any college degrees so a person with positions open where a degree is not required is an clear need to. I am hunting for a hands on job in the garden and am open to any coaching and certification required. I live in Michigan if that assists.
Thank you in advance!

Best answer:

Answer by Ann
Volunteer at the local food pantry, soup kitchen, domestic abuse shelter, or homeless shelter. Read at the library, have a story hour. Read at the nearby hospital in the waiting room. Support at the animal shelter or humane society.
If you cannot do that have a food drive “Oodles of Noodles” is a pasta drive that is generally very effective for the food pantry. Gather new toothbrushes and hairbrushes for the domestic abuse shelter. Gather blankets, hats, gloves for the homeless shelter. Collect utilized blankets and towels for the animal shelter.
The need to have is excellent the opportunities are endless.

Know much better? Leave your own answer in the comments!

The Fight over Engineered Meals Lands in Washington

For connected articles and a lot more information, please visit OCA’s Genetic Engineering web page, Millions Against Monsanto page and our Washington News page.

A national fight over labeling of genetically engineered foods is touching down in Washington this fall, fueled by income from organic and food-safety advocates.

On the other side, huge agribusiness and food industry groups are giving mightily to efforts that oppose Initiative 522.

Like Proposition 37 that failed narrowly in California a year ago right after opponents spent $ 46 million to defeat it, I-522 would demand that meals goods with genetically modified or engineered contents be labeled.

Genetically engineered foods are those that come from plants that have had genes transferred from yet another organism.

Even though opponents of I-522 say there is no scientific proof that “GMOs” or “GE” foods pose dangers for buyers, the Yes on I-522 campaign says customers should know what they are getting.

“Individuals are speaking about this problem. They genuinely care. They want to know what is in their meals,” Yes on I-522 spokeswoman Elizabeth Larter stated. She described the appeal to consumers’ logic as: “It is my choice. It is my choice. It’s my right to know. We know the sodium levels, the sugar levels” in foods that currently are labeled.

I-522 was filed as an initiative to the Legislature, but Washington’s lawmakers ignored it in their just concluded marathon legislative session, sending the measure to the Nov. 5 ballot.

Legislators also took a pass on professional initiative promoter Tim Eyman’s Initiative 517, which proposes added protections for initiative campaigns. Eyman’s measure is headed to the exact same November ballot but does not appear to be attracting significantly income. His campaign has reported $ 305,000 in in-sort donations, even though the effort to block his measure has raised just $ eight,one hundred.

On the contrary, funds is pouring into the Evergreen State from across the country for and against I-522.

As of last week’s filings with the state Public Disclosure Commission, No on I-522 forces had collected practically $ 952,000 – with all but $ six,700 of it coming from 5 market groups. The largest amount was $ 472,500 from the Grocery Companies Association in Washington, D.C. Another $ 242,156 was from Monsanto in St. Louis, $ 171,281 from DuPont Pioneer in Johnson, Iowa, and $ 29,531 each was from Bayer Cropscience in North Carolina and Dow AgroSciences LLC in Indianapolis.

The backers of food labeling say their concern is attracting numerous small in-state donors – even even though more than $ 1.6 million of the Yes on I-522 campaign’s $ two.1 million in funds has come from out-of-state pockets.&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp

How is the Bt gene introduced into the genetic code of plants?

Question by ☆♥Angelic Voice♥☆: How is the Bt gene introduced into the genetic code of plants?
My friend at a diverse college was curious. Sorry about the extended question-also if you can answer this: How is Bt used differently for organic farming than in GM corn?
PLEASE Support! A Great ANSWER WILL GET ten POINTS! POSSIBLY EVEN THE First ANSWER!

Very best answer:

Answer by john h
1st, scientists recognize a strain of Bt that kills the targeted insect. Then they isolate the gene that produces the lethal protein. That gene is removed from the Bt bacterium and a gene conferring resistance to a chemical (generally antibiotic or herbicide) is attached that will prove useful in a later step.
The Bt gene with the resistance gene attached is inserted into plant cells. At this point, scientists must figure out which plant cells have effectively received the Bt gene and are now transformed. Any plant cell that has the Bt gene must also have the resistance gene that was attached to it. Researchers grow the plant cells in the presence of the antibiotic or herbicide and pick the plant cells that are unaffected by it. These genetically transformed plant cells are then grown into entire plants by a procedure known as tissue culture. The modified plants generate the very same lethal Bt protein created by Bt bacteria due to the fact the plants now have the very same gene.
Organic farming use the Bt Bacteria to manage insects use precisely the very same the same lethal Bt protein as the genetically modified plants because they have the exact same gene.
http://www.biotech.iastate.edu/biotech_info_series/bio9.html

Know much better? Leave your own answer in the comments!

Monsanto Faces Opposition in Puerto Rico

For related articles and a lot more data, please check out OCA’s Genetic Engineering page and our Millions Against Monsanto web page.

Agricultural biotech corporate giant Monsanto fairly a lot has had its way in Puerto Rico because it first set up seed breeding operations in the island in 1983. But the last few months have seen a hailstorm of negative publicity and protests against the corporation’s local activities.

On June 11, Monsanto Caribe, the company’s nearby affiliate, refused to testify at a Puerto Rico Senate hearing on proposed seed legislation, bill PS 624.

“Monsanto does not produce, sell [or] provide…standard or certified seed with the purpose of planting in Puerto Rico,” argued business representative Eric Torres-Collazo in a letter to the Senate agriculture committee explaining the selection not to testify. Technically accurate, considering that all the seed this and other biotech organizations make in Puerto Rico is for export. But committee chair Ramón Ruiz-Nieves has not accepted Monsanto’s argument, pointing out that the firm receives substantial subsidies from the regional agriculture division and it is registered with the PR government as a bona fide farmer. Ruiz-Nieves informed the press that he intends to summon Monsanto once more.

This certain story has received international coverage following a Corpwatch piece I wrote, which is actually a common story on Monsanto’s woes in the island, not just the seed hearing blow-off. Each Russia’s RT and TruthOut followed up on it, stating that the Senate hearing was about legislation to regulate and rein in the planting of genetically modified (GM) seeds in the island. TruthOut even portrayed the Senate as a formidable adversary, with the headline “Puerto Rico Senate Fights Back Against Monsanto.”

To set the record straight, PS 624 has nothing to say about GM seed. The Puerto Rico Senate has by no means attempted to regulate or constrain the regional activities of biotech corporations in any way, shape or form, much significantly less ever stood up to the likes of Monsanto. In addition, the text of PS 624 reads like one thing that could have been written by a Monsanto attorney.

Not only that, but the biotech seed industry faces a potentially far more essential and contentious battle in the PR Senate wellness committee, as we’ll see later.

The bill’s exposition of motives states that Puerto Rico has a actual quality handle difficulty with locally made seeds and proposes to remedy this with legislation to regulate their production and sale. The bill does not address two main issues of organic farmers and progressive organizations: contamination of seed stocks with GM varieties, and the patenting of standard and heirloom varieties of seed by transnational corporations.&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp