Corn Laws "Corn" included any grain that requires grinding, especially wheat. The laws were introduced by the Importation Act 1815 (55 Geo. 3 c. 26) and repealed by the Importation Act 1846 (9 & 10 Vict. c. 22). The laws are often considered examples of British mercantilism.[1] The economic issue was food prices. The political issue was a dispute between landowners (a long-established class, who were heavily represented in Parliament) and the new class of manufacturers and industrialists (who were not). The Corn Laws enhanced the profits and political power associated with land ownership. Origins[edit] In 1813, a House of Commons Committee recommended excluding foreign-grown corn until the price of domestically grown corn increased to 80 shillings (£4) (2010 equivalent: £202.25) per quarter (1 quarter = 480 lb / 218.8 kg). Opposition[edit] In 1820 the Merchants' Petition, written by Thomas Tooke, was presented to the House of Commons demanding free trade and an end to protective tariffs.
BE EDUCATED AND BE SAFE.Be wise and make a decison to stop consumptionof Productive Farmland Should Grow Food not Fuel “It’s 36 percent more efficient to grow grain for food than for fuel,” said the lead author of a paper that looked at 17 years worth of data to help settle the food versus fuel debate. [social_buttons] “The ideal is to grow corn for food,” said Ilya Gelfand , a Michigan State University postdoctoral researcher, “then leave the leftover stalks and leaves on the field for soil conservation and produce cellulosic ethanol with the other half.” “It comes down to what’s the most efficient use of the land,” said Phil Robertson, University Distinguished Professor of crop and soil sciences and one of the paper’s authors. Gelfand and Robertson along with Sieglinde Snapp, the third co-author and an MSU associate professor of crop and soil sciences, analysed data collected between 1989 and 2007 gathered from the W.K. The most efficient plant as a biofuel was alfalfa, which turned out to be 60% more efficient than using it for cattle feed. Neville Millar, a colleague of Ilya Gelfand at the W.K.
They did it why can't we? Supreme Court decision to not hear carbofuran petition leaves growers with fewer pesticide options The Supreme Court has denied a petition by three producer groups and FMC for a review of a lower court ruling which upheld the Environmental Protection Agency’s revocation of the domestic tolerances for FMC’s carbofuran insecticide. The High Court’s refusal to consider the case cleared the way for EPA to continue its cancelation of most of the tolerances for the pesticide, also known as Furadan, which, at one time, was a staple of insect control strategies in corn, rice and potatoes. The case, the National Corn Growers Association vs. “We are greatly disappointed by the U.S. The U.S. Morelli said FMC believes carbofuran is a safe product after 40 years of productive use without a single incident of dietary or drinking water injury. “We hope the EPA’s handling of carbofuran is not an indication of how the agency intends to proceed with future product cancellations.”
Food vs. fuel Food versus fuel is the dilemma regarding the risk of diverting farmland or crops for biofuels production to the detriment of the food supply. The biofuel and food price debate involves wide-ranging views, and is a long-standing, controversial one in the literature.[1][2][3][4] There is disagreement about the significance of the issue, what is causing it, and what can or should be done to remedy the situation. This complexity and uncertainty is due to the large number of impacts and feedback loops that can positively or negatively affect the price system. Moreover, the relative strengths of these positive and negative impacts vary in the short and long terms, and involve delayed effects. The academic side of the debate is also blurred by the use of different economic models and competing forms of statistical analysis.[5] Biofuel production has increased in recent years. Food price inflation[edit] From 1974 to 2005 real food prices (adjusted for inflation) dropped by 75%. U.S.
Another Inconvenient Truth: Biofuels are not the answer to climate or fuel crisis “Biofuel policies are actually helping to accelerate climate change and deepen poverty and hunger” Rob Bailey Oxfam’s biofuel policy adviser Published: 26 June 2008 Today’s biofuel policies are not solving the climate or fuel crises but are instead contributing to food insecurity and inflation. In today’s report “Another Inconvenient Truth”, Oxfam calculates that rich country biofuel policies have dragged more than 30 million people into poverty, according to evidence that biofuels have already contributed up to 30% to the global rise in food prices. “Biofuel policies are actually helping to accelerate climate change and deepen poverty and hunger. “If the fuel value for a crop exceeds its food value, then it will be used for fuel instead. Rich countries must stop and revise their policies now. “Rich countries spent up to $15 billion last year supporting biofuels while blocking cheaper Brazilian ethanol, which is far less damaging for global food security. Notes to Editors
One quarter of US grain crops fed to cars - not people, new figures show | Environment One-quarter of all the maize and other grain crops grown in the US now ends up as biofuel in cars rather than being used to feed people, according to new analysis which suggests that the biofuel revolution launched by former President George Bush in 2007 is impacting on world food supplies. The 2009 figures from the US Department of Agriculture shows ethanol production rising to record levels driven by farm subsidies and laws which require vehicles to use increasing amounts of biofuels. "The grain grown to produce fuel in the US [in 2009] was enough to feed 330 million people for one year at average world consumption levels," said Lester Brown, the director of the Earth Policy Institute, a Washington thinktank ithat conducted the analysis. Last year 107m tonnes of grain, mostly corn, was grown by US farmers to be blended with petrol. According to Brown, the growing demand for US ethanol derived from grains helped to push world grain prices to record highs between late 2006 and 2008.
Pakistan starts producing Japan’s rice variety Targets to export 100,000 tons of ‘Japonica’ to Japan. Japonica gave 100 per cent more output per acre compared to basmati and non-basmati varieties cultivated in the country. PHOTO: FILE Talking to the media at his office here on Friday, TDAP Chief Executive Tariq Iqbal Puri said Pakistan undertook the project of cultivating Japonica following a visit of President Asif Ali Zardari to Japan in February this year when Japanese buyers highlighted the importance of this variety. Japan, South Korea, Thailand, Vietnam and the US are already producing Japonica, which is very popular among consumers of China, Japan, Far East, Europe and other countries. Puri said efforts were under way to export 100,000 tons of Japonica to Japan and the variety would also be put on display in the upcoming Expo Pakistan exhibition later this month. He said Japan had also a big market for value-added rice products and exporters could also target this by making value addition in Japonica rice.
Resisting the Corporate Theft of Seeds by Vandana Shiva For related articles and more information, please visit OCA's Genetic Engineering page, Millions Against Monsanto page. We are in a food emergency. Speculation and diversion of food to biofuel has contributed to an uncontrolled price rise, adding more to the billion already denied their right to food. Industrial agriculture is pushing species to extinction through the use of toxic chemicals that kill our bees and butterflies, our earthworms and soil organisms that create soil fertility. But the biggest threat we face is the control of seed and food moving out of the hands of farmers and communities and into a few corporate hands. I started Navdanya in 1987 to address the challenge of GM seeds, seed patents and seed monopolies. We have been successful in reclaiming seed sovereignty and creating sixty community seed banks to reclaim seed as a commons. But our efforts are like a little lamp in a very dark room.
Arizona Proposes Ending Free School Lunches For Needy Kids Arizona Republicans set their sights on a new target for the legislative session: poor children. Earlier this week a state senate panel agreed to let schools opt out of the federal program to offer free and reduced-priced lunches for needy students. The measure now heads to a full senate vote. Republicans sponsoring the measure voiced concern over imposing mandates on schools to take federal dollars they may not want to, relying on the familiar rhetoric of states rights federalism underscoring all social welfare policy debate these days. Of course, this argument entirely ignores the purpose of those mandates, and that is, in part, to ensure equality and uniformity of access to all citizens of all the states as part of a respect for federal civil rights. And this move seems especially mean-spirited, even for Arizona Republicans. It’s also picking a fight, or more appropriately, picking on, a constituency that literally has no ability to fight back. Related Stories: