Excessive rare earth found in China's top tea varieties

Want China Times, Staff Reporter 2015-03-08

Planters of Da Hong Pao pick tea leaves on Wuyi Mountain, May 2014.
(File photo/ Xinhua)

The Beijing Food and Drug Administration unveiled four Chinese varieties of tea that contain rare earth metal up to 3.5 times the regulated limit, reports our Chinese language sister newspaper Want Daily.

The teas that were named are: Tieguanyin from Anxi in Fujian, Longjing from Guangshan, Henan, Da Hong Pao from the Wuyi Mountain region and black tea from Jiangsu province. All of these are popular varieties, specifically Tieguanyin and Longjing, which have been listed in China's top ten premium selections of teas.

Among those named, the Da Hong Pao, a prime variety of oolong tea from Wuyi Mountain, contains 6.9 milligrams (mg) of rare earth element, almost 3.5 times the maximum quantity of 2 mg allowed per kilogram. The Tieguanyin from Fujian follows with 6.9 mg/kg.

The tea from Fujian is most frequently found to have excessive amounts of heavy metal pollutants. Certain Longjing teas, in addition to containing rare earth metal, have misleading labels boasting a higher quality tea than what tests show.

The varieties in questions have been removed from market shelves.

It is long been known that tea grown in China contain excessive amount of rare earth elements, which are added into chemical fertilizers used by 90% of tea farmers to stimulate growth, which in turn produces more buds and heavier leaves, according to reports from China's NetEase news portal.

Tea producers, however, say that the issue with too much rare earth elements is exclusive to China as there is no other nation regulating consumable quantities of the metal. They also claim that the rare earth is part of the natural makeup of the soil, instead of from fertilizers. Based on these arguments, the farmers are calling for a revision of the regulations.

Rare earth is a set of 17 chemical elements that occur in nature, with China being a major global producer. It is widely applied in chemical engineering, metallurgy, weaving and other industries.

Overdoses of the heavy metal could damage the kidneys, liver, neural system and fertility.

Pesticide Use on Indonesia Farms ‘Alarming’: NGO

Jakarta Globe, Alina Musta’idah, April 19, 2012

A farmer sprays pesticide in a paddy field in Ngoro village in Mojokerto,
 East Java, in this file photo. According to the People’s Coalition for
Food Sovereignty (KRKP) Indonesian farmers use pesticides with alarming
frequency — an average 5.7 times per growing season. (Antara Photo)

               

Related articles

• Villages Play Part In Combatting Climate Change
• Men Jailed for 8 Months for Killing 20 Orangutans
• REDD Alert in Kalimantan As AusAid Initiative Stumbles
• Cameras Used to Help Save Endangered Javan Rhino
• Indonesia's Insect Issues May Get Worse as Season Changes

Indonesian farmers use an alarming amount of pesticides — including some with illegal toxic chemicals — on their crops, the People’s Coalition for Food Sovereignty (KRKP) said on Thursday.

The NGO cited a 2011 survey of 306 farmers in Central Java that found that farmers used pesticides an average of 5.7 times per growing season.

“That is a very high use for farms,” KRKP official Said Abdullah said in Jakarta on Thursday.

Pesticides are big business in Indonesia. The local market reaches about Rp 6 trillion ($654 million) a year, Said said. That market includes 350 brands of fungicides, 600 brands of herbicides and 800 brands of insecticides registered with the Indonesian authorities, according to Ministry of Agriculture’s Pesticide Commission numbers.

And these figures don't even include products that enter the country illegally, Said said.

“Between 10 and 12 percent of pesticides circulating [in Indonesia] are illegal,” he said.

Many of these chemicals contain harmful substances like organochlorine and organophosphate, Said said.

The one chemical, organophosphate, is considered hazardous, even in low doses, and its use is highly-regulated, or banned outright, in 23 counties. Organochlorine was present in the pesticide DDT, a chemical that caused massive ecological damage in the United States before its use was banned in the 1960s.

He called on farmers to adopt more environmentally-conscious and sustainable farming methods. 

BeritaSatu

Monsanto and Genetically Modified Crops - Is there a cover-up?

Pravda.Ru, Timothy Bancroft-Hinchey, 19 Mar 2012

Does Monsanto know what it is doing? Do, we, the public have all the facts? Is genetically modified food safe? Are food products which contain it clearly labelled? Is Monsanto, knowingly or unknowingly, destroying the biosphere? Is genetically modified produce a health hazard? For those who do not wish to get scared, please do not read on.

Monsanto. Haven't we heard that name before? Yes, do you remember who created Agent Orange? Do you remember who created DDT? Do you remember who created Aspartame?

If we are what we eat, then we have a right to know the answers to these questions. And there are more. Why are cancers of the digestive system rising exponentially? Let us start with Monsanto's wonderful herbicide, Roundup.

The journal Current Microbiology has just released a report (1) on a substance called Glyphosate, created by Monsanto in the 1970s and used in Roundup. The report is shocking. It reveals that studies prove that Glyphosate is altering and destroying the micro-organisms in the soil, which has a potential effect upon the health of crops growing in it.

So devastating are the effects, according to the report, that some bacteria have disappeared from certain areas where Roundup was used to spray vast areas of land and apart from this, use of the product has spurred the appearance of superweeds, meaning that in turn farmers have to use greater and greater concentrations of the product. The soil is as a result being rendered barren for future generations.

Far more worrying are fears that the use of this herbicide is killing organisms whose benefit on a planetary scale has not yet been fully investigated and whose elimination from the ecological chain may have very serious consequences.

But this is just the tip of the iceberg. What happens to Glyphosate? It works its way down through the topsoil to the groundwater below and from there finds its way into our water supply - underground water currents and springs. This is not conjecture: virtually all rain samples tested in the USA contain Glyphosate.

What does the US Department of Agriculture do? Why, nothing! And this, despite the fact that other investigations have warned that Glyphosate can be carcinogenic, reducing fertility and increasing risk of cancer because it is genotoxic, damaging the DNA chain.

The problem is not only restricted to the USA. Superweeds have lasting damaging effects upon the soil and nowadays already cover millions of hectares in the USA, Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Chile, the EU and South Africa.

Cancer, infertility, barren land, destruction of DNA, destruction of micro-organisms which may be crucial for the planet's ecosystem, superweeds...what else? Well it appears we have been here before. In fact, Monsanto has just agreed to pay out 93 million USD for the effects of an explosion at its plant in Nitro, West Virginia involving the herbicide 2,4,5-T which contained the toxic agent dioxin. But there are still 80,000 property damage claims against the firm.

In fact, an investigation of the Nitro Residents v. Monsanto case reveals some horrific allegations which involve contamination of the environment, cover-ups, falsification of studies...you name it. But hey, as a government contractor, Monsanto has always enjoyed government immunity in the USA.

And what was that about Monsanto not serving Genetically Engineered (GE) food in its own canteens? Well, when we take into consideration that Glyphosate destroys human kidney cells at concentrations 450 times lower than the concentration used in agricultural applications... and when we consider the very little information available on the real potential dangers lurking behind GE foodstuffs, it is hardly surprising.

What is unacceptable is that while the long-term effects of consumption of GE food are still not available, GE seeds are spreading round the planet on wind currents and on aquifers. Remember the respected scientist Arpad Pusztai?

Arpad Pusztai is an expert in biochemistry and nutrition who worked at the Rowett Research Institute in Aberdeen, Scotland. When he released information about his discovery that Genetically Modified potatoes create severe damage to the immune system and organs of rats, he was suspended, threatened with a lawsuit and handed a gagging order, while his findings were denied or distorted. The gagging order was later lifted and when he went public again there was a massive recall of products. The US consumer was, of course, the last to know.

Before I finish, a question: Why do mice, rats, geese, cows, pigs, elk and squirrels avoid eating GM foods when given the choice?

Who would like to be a Monsanto shareholder now? I sure as heck wouldn't.

(1) Effects of Roundup® and Glyphosate on Three Food Microorganisms: Geotrichum candidum, Lactococcus lactis subsp. cremoris and Lactobacillus delbrueckii subsp. bulgaricus

Sources: Greenpeace; NaturalNews

Related Articles:

Scientists warn EPA on Monsanto corn rootworm

Court finds Monsanto guilty of poisoning

New Chapter sells out to Procter & Gamble, part of the global corporate elite

"Recalibration of Free Choice"–  Mar 3, 2012 (Kryon Channelling by Lee Caroll) - (Subjects: (Old) Souls, Midpoint on 21-12-2012, Shift of Human Consciousness, Black & White vs. Color, 1 - Spirituality (Religions) shifting, Lose a Pope “soon”, 2 - Humans will change react to drama, 3 - Civilizations/Population on Earth,  4 - Alternate energy sources (Geothermal, Tidal (Pedal wheels), Wind), 5 – Financials Institutes/concepts will change (Integrity – Ethical) , 6 - News/Media/TV to change, 7 – Big Pharmaceutical company will collapse “soon”, (Keep people sick), (Integrity – Ethical)  8 – Wars will be over on Earth, Global Unity, … etc.)  - New !   

Scientists warn EPA on Monsanto corn rootworm

Reuters, by Carey Gillam, Fri Mar 9, 2012

French beekeepers demonstrate to protest the use of genetically-modified

 organisms in front of French Monsanto headquarters in Bron, near Lyon,

 January 20, 2012. Sign reads, ''GMO = Death of Bees'' and banner in

background says, ''Monsanto get out''. (Credit: Reuters/Robert Pratta)

(Reuters) - A group of plant scientists is warning federal regulators that action is needed to mitigate a growing problem with biotech corn that is losing its resistance to plant-damaging pests.

The stakes are high - corn production is critical for food, animal feed and ethanol production, and farmers have increasingly been relying on corn that has been genetically modified to be toxic to corn rootworm pests.

"This is not something that is a surprise... but it is something that needs to be addressed," said Joseph Spencer, a corn entomologist with the Illinois Natural History Survey, part of the University of Illinois.

Spencer is one of 22 academic corn experts who sent a letter dated March 5 to the Environmental Protection Agency telling regulators they are worried about long-term corn production prospects because of the failure of the genetic modifications in corn aimed at protection from rootworm.

Monsanto introduced its corn rootworm protected products, which contain a protein referred to as "Cry3Bb1," in 2003 and they have proved popular with farmers in key growing areas around the country. Biotech corn sales are a key growth driver of sales at Monsanto.

The corn rootworm product is supposed to reduce the need to put insecticides into the soil, essentially making the corn plants toxic to the worms that try to feed on their roots.

But plant scientists have recently found evidence that the genetic modification is losing its effectiveness, making the plants vulnerable to rootworm damage and potentially significant production losses.

The scientists said in their letter to EPA that the situation should be acted upon "carefully, but with a sense of some urgency."

As concerns have mounted over the last year that Monsanto's rootworm-protected products were losing their effectiveness, Monsanto has said the problem is small and has said the products continue to provide corn farmers with "strong protection against this damaging pest."

Monsanto, the world's largest seed company, has recommended growers rotate the corn with its biotech soybeans, use another of its biotech corn products and use insecticides to try to address the problem.

"Rootworm performance inquiries in 2011 were isolated to less than 0.2 percent of the acres planted with Monsanto rootworm-traited corn hybrids," said Danielle Stuart, a Monsanto spokeswoman. "In all of these cases, Monsanto is working very closely with the farmer and has provided best management practices for the upcoming season on each of these fields. "

The problems with insect resistance have been reported in parts of Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota, Nebraska and South Dakota.

Continuing to plant a failing technology only increases the resistance development risk, the scientists said in their letter. Moreover, they say, the rootworm-protected BT corn is being planted in areas that have no need for it, often because there are few alternative seed options. Scarcity of non-BT corn seed is a concern, they said.

Using insecticides along with the biotech corn as Monsanto has advised is not a good approach, according to the scientists, because it elevates production costs for farmers and masks the extent and severity of the building insect resistance.

"Recommendations to apply insecticides to protect transgenic Bt corn rootworm corn strikes us as a clear admission that the Cry3Bb1 toxin is no longer providing control adequate to protect yield," the scientists wrote.

"When insecticides overlay transgenic technology, the economic and environmental advantages of rootworm-protected corn quickly disappear," the scientists wrote.

EPA Office of Pesticide Programs Director Steven Bradbury, who the letter was addressed to, could not be reached for comment.

(Reporting By Carey Gillam;editing by Sofina Mirza-Reid)

The French farmer Paul Francois, who says he suffers memory

 loss and stammering after inhaling a Monsanto pesticide. 

(Photograph: Jean-Philippe Ksiazek/AFP/Getty Images)

Related Articles:

Court finds Monsanto guilty of poisoning

Monsanto found guilty of chemical poisoning in France

Organic v. Monsanto

Organic farmers sue Monsanto

Leaked documents reveal US diplomats actually work for Monsanto

Court finds Monsanto guilty of poisoning

Deutsche Welle, 13 February 2012

A French court finds biotech giant Monsanto guilty of chemical poisoning. This groundbreaking verdict could influence future claims.

A French court on Monday declared US biotech giant Monsanto guilty of the chemical poisoning of a French farmer. This is the first such claim to reach a French court and could lend weight to other health claims against pesticide producers.

"Monsanto is responsible for Paul Francois' suffering after he inhaled the Lasso product ... and must entirely compensate him," said the judgment from the court in the southeastern city of Lyon.

Francois Lafforgue, lawyer for the plaintiff, labeled the verdict an "historic decision in so far as it is the first time that a (pesticide) maker is found guilty of such a poisoning."

Grain farmer Paul Francois, 47, says he suffered neurological problems including memory loss, headaches and stammering after inhaling Monsanto's Lasso weed killer in 2004.

He blames the agri-business giant for not providing adequate warnings on the product label.

The court ordered an expert opinion of the effects on the farmer to establish an amount for damages.

Monsanto said Monday that it was disappointed with the ruling and would look into a possible appeal.

"Monsanto always considered that there were not sufficient elements to establish a causal relationship between Paul Francois's symptoms and a potential poisoning," the company's lawyer, Jean-Philippe Delsart, said.

Fewer chemicals used today

Previous health claims from farmers have suffered in their ability to establish clear links between illnesses and exposure to pesticides. 

Monsanto is among the world's largest
agricultural biotech company's

In the Francois case, it was easier to pinpoint a specific incident - his inhalation of the Lasso when cleaning the tank of his crop sprayer - whereas other farmers are trying to argue the effects of accumulated exposures to various products.

This case harks back to a time when crop-protection chemicals were more heavily used in Europe. The EU has since banned a large number of substances considered dangerous.

Monsanto's Lasso, for example, was banned in France in 2007 following an EU directive after the product had already been withdrawn in some other countries.

Effects on others considered

The French association of crop protection companies, UIPP, said tests are done regularly to weigh cancer risks in humans.

"I think if we had a major health problem with pesticides, we would have already known about it," Jean-Charles Bocquet, UIPP's managing director, said.

Francois, meanwhile, is convinced he is just one of many to suffer effects from the pesticide. "I am alive today, but part of the farming population is going to be sacrificed and is going to die because of this," Francois said.

France's health and environment safety agency (ANSES), meanwhile, is conducting a study on farmers' health, with results expected next year.

tm/dfm (Reuters, AFP)

The French farmer Paul Francois, who says he suffers memory

 loss and stammering after inhaling a Monsanto pesticide. 

(Photograph: Jean-Philippe Ksiazek/AFP/Getty Images)

Related Articles:

Monsanto found guilty of chemical poisoning in France

Organic v. Monsanto

Organic farmers sue Monsanto

Leaked documents reveal US diplomats actually work for Monsanto

RI to become an important food supplier

Hyginus Hardoyo, The Jakarta Post, Rome, Thu, 11/19/2009 1:08 PM

Given its abundant agricultural resources, Indonesia is well positioned to become one of the world's most important food suppliers in the coming years, Indonesian Vice President Boediono said here Wednesday.

"The development of infrastructure, including in the agriculture sector, is a top priority in the government's plan.

"The government is ready to remove regulatory stumbling blocks that hinder investment in agribusiness," Boediono said at the end of a three-day World Summit on Food Security held at the Food and Agriculture Organization's (FAO) headquarters.

Attending world leaders have strived to work together to reverse the decline in domestic and international funding of agriculture, promote new investment in the sector, improve governance of global food issues in partnership with relevant stakeholders from the public and private sectors, and proactively face the challenges of climate change to food security.

"We need to improve our logistic system to optimize our vast geographic potential," Boediono said.

He recognized the basic problem of food security was to increase food supplies quickly and sustainably.

"The key is to accelerate investment in agricultural research, development and infrastructure."

The government has allocated Rp 33 trillion (US$1.9 billion) in subsidies for the agriculture sector this year.

Boediono said the global trade environment was a critical factor in sustaining global food production.

"We need international trade rules that are supportive of agricultural development in developing countries. It's a shame the Doha Round has now come to a standstill. We should work together for its reinstatement," he said.

The UN Secretary-General Ban Ki Moon called the current food crisis "a wake-up call for tomorrow".

"There can be no food security without climate security," he said, adding that if the glaciers on the Himalayas melted, it would affect the livelihood of 300 million people in China and up to a billion people in Asia.

FAO director-general Jacques Diouf stressed the need to produce food in countries that suffered from poverty and boost agricultural investment in those regions.

Diouf said that in some developed countries, 2 to 4 percent of the population were able to produce enough food to feed the entire nation and even to export, while in the majority of developing countries, 60 to 80 percent of the population were unable to meet the country's food requirements.

"Eliminating hunger requires US$44 billion in official development assistance per year be invested in infrastructure and technology.

"It is a small amount if we consider the $365 billion of agriculture producer support in OECD countries in 2007, and the $1,340 billion in world military expenditure in the same year," he said.

Japanese Investors Eye Purbalingga

Friday, 20 March, 2009 | 17:28 WIB

TEMPO Interactive, Purbalingga: A number of Japanese investors intend to invest in food production in Purbalingga regency. “At least 171 Jpanese companies are interested in investing in crystal coconut sugar produced by Purbalingga,” said Djoko Triwinarso, Purbalingga Secretariat spokesperson, yesterday.

Two investors, Pooki Teading Co and Asaki Yushi Koogyo, said they were ready to build livestock feed and food industries. However, they submitted some requirements, such as open price standards, quality and continuity.

Purbalingga regent, Triyono Budi Sasongko, said he would support the interest of the Japanese investors. “Beside capital investment, we also hope for a process of technology transfer,” he said.

ARIS ANDRIANTO

Govt gears up to limit free trade deal adversities

The Jakarta Post , JAKARTA | Mon, 03/16/2009 11:30 AM

Milking it all the way: A farmer milks a cow at his farm near Jl. Mampang Prapatan, South Jakarta, in this June 19, 2008, file photo. The Agriculture Ministry has proposed Rp 145 billion (US$12.18 million) this year from the stimulus package to boost the competitiveness of the country’s meat, milk and dairy businesses against foreign competitors, ministry officials said Saturday. (JP/J. Adiguna)

Indonesia is preparing massive financial and technical support for meat and tropical fruit businesses in a bid to cash in on ASEAN’s free trade deals with Australia and New Zealand.

The Agriculture Ministry’s director general of husbandry, Tjeppy D. Soedjana, said Saturday the ministry had proposed Rp 145 billion (US$12.18 million) this year from the stimulus package to boost competitiveness of the country’s meat, milk and dairy businesses against foreign competitors.

He added the businesses would face tougher challenges due to the recently inked free trade agreement (FTA) between ASEAN and Australia and New Zealand.

“The proposed stimulus will help local cattle farmers develop their businesses, while also preparing them to compete against imported products before the ASEAN FTA with Australia and New Zealand takes full effect,” Tjeppy said.

Under the FTA, Indonesia will completely slash its import duties on four beef products from the two countries by 2020 and on seven dairy products between 2017 and 2019.

Tjeppy said steps in preparing the farmers should be taken immediately from the upstream level of the cattle breeding sector.

“If the Finance Ministry approves the stimulus, not only we can cover domestic demand, but we can also compete with overseas products and even export our products,” he said.

He added the stimulus would take the form of loan interest subsidies for domestic cattle farmers under the existing cattle breeding business financing (KUPS) scheme.

“The KUPS scheme is pro-poor and intended for small cattle farmers,” he said, adding local farmers were currently breeding 10 million cows.

Besides the subsidy, the ministry will also help cattle breeders work with oil palm farmers to help provide sufficient feed for the cattle.

“A hectare of oil palm plantations can feed two to three cows. There are around 7 million hectares of plantations, which translates into feed for 21 million cows,” Tjeppy said.

He added Indonesia imported 30 percent of its meat demand annually, consisting of 450,000 cows for breeding and 150,000 tons of frozen meat, while importing 70 percent of its dairy demand.

Besides the meat and dairy businesses, the ministry will also help expand the export of tropical fruit to Australia and New Zealand under the FTA, which scraps import duties for horticultural produce.

Sri Kuntarsih, secretary of the Agriculture Ministry’s horticulture directorate general, said Indonesian fruit exports to Australia were limited because of strict quality inspection systems in place, which acted similar to non-tariff barriers.

She added that ever since the deal was signed, the ministry had submitted a proposal to the Australian Embassy in Jakarta regarding the possibility of exporting three types of produce: mangosteens, mangoes and onions.

“However, the embassy said we had to select only one for the time being. So we’ve decided to go with mangosteens,” she said.

“Australia has very high standards for the quality of agriculture produce. “This has been our main concern for not being able to enter their market sooner.”

Indonesia is targeting a 13 percent jump in horticulture exports worldwide this year to $411 million. (fmb/hdtw)

Certification problems make Indonesian agricultural produce less competitive

Benget Besalicto Tnb., The Jakarta Post, Jakarta | Sat, 03/07/2009 2:19 PM

Lack of certification has been blamed as the main factor behind the lack of competitiveness of Indonesia's agricultural products, both domestically and internationally, an agribusiness consultant said Friday.

Ernest E. Bethe III, program manager of agribusiness for the International Finance Corporation's (IFC) Indonesia Advisory Services, said the lack of certification stemmed from the absence of awareness on the need for certification for the international market.

He also blamed the fact that certification agencies in the country were not fully developed yet.

He pointed out that 20 years ago, Indonesian agricultural products could still manage to compete in global markets.

During that period, he went on, the Singaporean market was flooded with Indonesian agricultural produce. But now, even in the domestic market, local produce cannot compete with imported foods.

There have been several cases where Indonesian food products, especially fresh produce, have been rejected in overseas markets due to problems related to pesticide content or other harmful chemical substances.

Some standardization and certification agencies have set up operations in the country, but are running at less than peak effectiveness, Bethe said.

"I think it is mainly related to the lack of certification and the problem of inefficiency in the supply chain," he said.

He added that poor infrastructure in supporting the supply chain had fueled the need to import agricultural produce, because under such conditions, imported foods became much cheaper.

"We've also witnessed that it is very costly to acquire certification for food products here," he told a media briefing for an upcoming conference on the sustainable agricultural supply chain.

"This is because producers have to ask foreign certification agencies to ensure their produce is acceptable for the international market."

The conference will run from March 12-13, and will be organized by the IFC, an institution that operates under the World Bank to promote growth and reduce poverty in developing countries like Indonesia, in partnership with the private sector.

Bethe said the IFC conference would feature a number of experts in supply chain management, who would share best practices with executives from emerging Asian companies.

There will also be technical workshops on supply chain management, which will be combined with interactive strategy sessions and networking opportunities.

"Participants will receive advisory services and information on consumer market trends," Bethe said.

"All will be tailored to the new realities in the face of the worldwide economic crisis, rising food prices and increasingly stringent import specifications and standards."

Brigit S. Helmes, the head of advisory services at IFC Indonesia, added the conference was part of the institution's program to target about 900,000 farmers for training in the supply chain management as a way to increase their income over the next five years.

She said that the IFC, in cooperation with the Smallholder Agribusiness Development Initiative (SADI), would commit a total fund of US$38 million this year to train farmers.

But she pointed out this would be done in cooperation with companies involved in the supply chains of certain agricultural products, and not do it directly with farmers.

SADI program director Jacqueline Pomeroy said SADI, which is fully funded by the Australian government, had so far focused its training programs in four provinces in the eastern part of Indonesia: South and North Sulawesi, and East and West Nusa Tenggara.

It has provided about Rp 1.1 billion for each of 24 subdistricts in the provinces, or a total fund of about Rp 24 billion, to train farmers.