TOP STORIES PAST 7 DAYS

Monday, December 17, 2012

LLEGARA CHAVEZ A LA TOMA DE POSESION ??? ...
















CHAVEZ SE QUEDO CON ZULIA DESPUES DE 14 AñOS INTENTANDO ...






















Arias gana la gobernación con el respaldo de 17 municipios





Por Gabriela Moreno / Maracaibo / gmoreno@laverdad.com








Oficialismo mantuvo tendencia electoral de las presidenciales del 7 de octubre. 



Maracaibo se negó a favorecer al abanderado de la revolución con su voto en los comicios regionales junto a tres localidades más; Francisco Javier Pulgar, Simón Bolívar y Lagunillas










Lunes, 17 Diciembre 2012 01:00








Arrasó.



 Francisco Arias Cárdenas, abanderado del Partido Socialista Unido de Venezuela, se convirtió en el nuevo gobernador del Zulia con el respaldo de 17 de los 21 municipios del estado. En la mayoría con más del 50 por ciento de los votos. 



La victoria en la subregión Guajira, que abarca Mara, Páez y Almirante Padilla rozó en promedio el 70 por ciento de las boletas escrutadas.







La ficha de la revolución pisará el Palacio de los Cóndores sin el respaldo de Ma racaibo, Simón Bolívar, Lagunillas y Francisco Javier Pulgar. Estas cuatro localidades favorecieron a Pablo Pérez, candidato de la Mesa de la Unidad, en su aspiración a la reelección.









En la contienda de ayer, el chavismo bajó la tendencia de las presidenciales del 7 de octubre, competencia en la que obtuvo 19 municipios a favor. 



Marisela González, directora de la Oficina Regional Electoral, informó que la jornada se desarrolló sin inconvenientes en la entidad.






http://www.laverdad.com/politica/17300-arias-gana-la-gobernacion-con-el-respaldo-de-17-municipios.html


CHAVEZ PUEDE MORIR FELIZ ...SE QUEDO CON ZULIA ....






Oposición venezolana: ¿Y ahora qué?





diciembre 17, 2012 1:46 pm










Por primera vez en años el mote que le endilga el gobierno del presidente Hugo Chávez se hizo más patente que nunca: la oposición “escuálida” de votos sólo consiguió tres de las 23 gobernaciones venezolanas en los comicios regionales del domingo.





Los opositores, de quienes Chávez destaca su flaca representación, perdieron bastiones clave como el estado petrolero de Zulia y el central de Carabobo.







(foto AP)

La única piedra que sigue en el zapato del chavismo es Henrique Capriles, el líder opositor que ganó la relección en el estado central de Miranda, imponiéndose al candidato del gobierno y ex vicepresidente Elías Jaua.







Con el mapa venezolano teñido de rojo, el color que tradicionalmente ha identificado a los seguidores del presidente Chávez, la gran pregunta ahora es que hará la oposición venezolana para sobrevivir y enfrentar una eventual nueva elección presidencial.





Las razones de la derrota opositora, según los analistas, están principalmente en que la alta abstención favoreció a los candidatos del gobierno que cuentan con la maquinaria para movilizar a sus simpatizantes. A ello se sumó la falta de un mensaje claro alternativo al chavismo, mientras la campaña oficialista centró en los últimos días su discurso en que una victoria sería el mejor regalo y medicina para Chávez, días después de que el mandatario se operase en Cuba del cáncer que lo aqueja desde 2011.






“Hay que revisar toda la estrategia” opositora, dijo Carlos Blanco, profesor de la Universidad Central de Venezuela. “Sería una pésima (estrategia) atribuir a los electores la culpa… Yo creo que en todo caso la dirección opositora debería plantearse por qué no logró no sólo reunir la misma cantidad de electores que reunió hace pocos meses, sino incrementarlos”, agregó.







Esa revisión es recomendada por la mayoría porque “con tantas gobernaciones en las manos del PSUV (o Partido Socialista Unido de Venezuela) significa que las fuerzas del gobierno tendrán una fuerte maquinaria estatal en la eventualidad de una elección nacional” y por tanto mayores probabilidades de una nueva victoria, dijo Miguel Tinker Salas, profesor de estudios latinoamericanos del instituto Pomona, en California.







La discusión sobre un nuevo comicio presidencial luego de que Chávez se impusiera a Capriles en la elección del 7 de octubre surgió casi inmediatamente después de que el 8 de diciembre el mandatario anunció al país en cadena de radio y televisión que habían reaparecido células cancerosas en la misma zona pélvica donde ya había sido operado tres veces en La Habana y adonde volvió aquella semana para una cuarta intervención.








Debido a que no se sabe exactamente cuándo podrá regresar Chávez a Venezuela, y si lo hará antes del 10 de enero cuando por normas constitucionales debe jurar al cargo frente a la Asamblea Nacional, la controversia quedó servida.




Si Chávez no puede asumir el cargo en enero, el gobierno queda en manos del presidente de la Asamblea Nacional, quien debe llamar a nuevas elecciones en 30 días.







En caso de que Chávez pueda asistir a la ceremonia de asunción pero su estado de salud empeore, el cargo queda en manos del vicepresidente quien también debe llamar a nuevos comicios si la falta absoluta del mandatario se produce en los cuatro primeros años de los seis de mandato.







Con rostros largos y cansados los opositores expresaron su pesar por la derrota del domingo.






“Es un golpe muy fuerte”, dijo Ramón Guillermo Aveledo, secretario ejecutivo de la Mesa de la Unidad Democrática o la MUD, la coalición que agrupa a las organizaciones opositoras. “Nos dolió mucho”, agregó en una entrevista el lunes temprano con el canal Globovisión.






Ahora “hay análisis que hacer (sobre) qué aptos o ineptos somos”, dijo Aveledo.




El analista político Ricardo Sucre indicó que a pesar del fracaso electoral opositor, la unidad entre sus dirigentes se mantendrá.







“Hasta ahora la primera (derrota del 7 de octubre) la soportó. La segunda yo ceo que sí. Por supuesto la Mesa debe hacer una revisión, debe evaluar, no puede ser simplemente decir perdimos”, destacó Sucre.




La alta abstención jugó a favor del oficialismo, cuya maquinaria electoral esta perfectamente aceitada, no sólo porque moviliza a sus partidarios inscritos sino porque además es capaz de llevarlos en motos a los centros electorales, una práctica que el gobierno niega.










Pero más allá de la abstención, lo cierto es que la oposición no consiguió en una fría campaña animar a sus partidarios aún abatidos por la derrota de octubre, indicó a su turno Mariana Bacalao, profesora de opinión pública en la Universidad Católica Andrés Bello, en Caracas. “Hay una apatía, una sensación de fracaso… (la oposición) debe sentarse, replantarse cómo reinsertarse en esta nueva realidad” de un país cuyas gobernaciones están en manos del chavismo, dijo.








Para la oposición los resultados electorales de este domingo representan un significativo retroceso en comparación con los comicios de 2008 cuando lograron hacerse de las gobernaciones de Zulia, Miranda y Carabobo, tres de los mayores colegios electorales del país.








Considerando que el oficialismo ya tiene un virtual candidato para los eventuales comicios, el vicepresidente Nicolás Maduro en quien Chávez delegó el poder político al marchar a Cuba, para la oposición resulta más urgente aglutinar sus fuerzas.









David Smilde, profesor de sociología de la Universidad de Georgia, dijo que los candidatos del presidente se vieron favorecidos por la incertidumbre de los venezolanos sobre el futuro del país sin Chávez y temerosos de perder los beneficios que han acumulado bajo su gobierno.



“Creo que con Chávez enfermo… los hace pensar cómo serían las cosas sin Chávez”, dijo Smilde. “La gente está pensando en su propio interés”, agregó. 


AP





http://www.lapatilla.com/site/2012/12/17/oposicion-venezolana-y-ahora-que/




Total Produce to buy 65% stake in Oppenheimer Group ...












Total Produce plc is to buy 65% of Grandview Ventures Limited which trades as the Oppenheimer Group, in two stages for a total price of up to €32m.






Headquartered in Vancouver, Canada, the Oppenheimer Group/Oppy provides fresh fruit and vegetable produce to its retail, wholesale and foodservice customers throughout the United States and Canada. The group has a network of growers around the world and operates from a number of locations throughout North America.








It had sales of CDN$525m (€410m) in 2011, had operating profits on an adjusted basis of CDN$11m (€8.6m) before minorities and will have net assets of approximately CDN$20m (€15.6m) at completion.










In January 2013, Total Produce will acquire a 35pc shareholding for an initial cash payment of CDN$15m (€11.7m). An additional consideration for these shares will be made in 2015 if certain profit targets are met. A further 30pc shareholding will be purchased in 2017 for a price that will be determined based on future profits.








The total consideration payable for the 65pc shareholding is estimated not to exceed CDN$40m (€32m).










Total Produce said the acquisition continues its international expansion and represents an important entry into the North American market. 




The company expects the investment to be earnings enhancing from the date of completion.









Oppenheimer will continue to be managed by its current chairman, president and CEO, John Anderson, and his existing team. Anderson has entered into a long term service agreement as part of the transaction, and will continue as the 35pc shareholder following the 2017 transaction.







The transaction was originated by Davy Corporate Finance which provided advice to Total Produce. Ernst & Young Orenda Corporate Finance Inc is acting as financial advisor to the Oppenheimer Group.








“This transaction offers us a significant growth opportunity and represents a continuation of the Group's development strategy of acquiring strong businesses in our sector,” said Carl McCann, chairman of Total Produce. “We look forward to working with John Anderson and his team who have an excellent reputation in this industry."




"We are delighted to enter this strategic alliance with Total Produce, a partner that strengthens our ability to grow strategically while benefitting our growers and customers as we continue to operate autonomously,” said Anderson.



 “We are looking forward to the opportunities ahead as we leverage the synergies between our two organisations."







Source: businessandleadership.com



Publication date: 12/17/2012








http://www.freshplaza.com/news_detail.asp?id=104219









http://www.freshplaza.com/news_detail.asp?id=104219




Some Countries Ban GMOs, But Not The United States Of Monsanto ...









December 17, 2012 by Bob Livingston 








                                                    

PHOTOS.COM








America was once the breadbasket for the world. Produce grown in the U.S. fed people across the globe. 





No longer.





Now countries are banning U.S. foods in an effort to spare their citizens from the health hazards of genetically modified foods, also known as genetically modified organisms, or GMOs.






Monsanto leads the way in GMO foods. About 90 percent of all corn, soybeans and cotton are grown from genetically engineered seeds. The genetically modified products are now found in about 70 percent of all American processed food. And Monsanto controls about 90 percent of all genetically engineered seeds.






In other words, Monsanto has almost a complete monopoly on the U.S. food supply. 


It accomplished this by becoming the fourth branch of government. 



There is a revolving door between government regulatory agencies, Congressional staffs and Big Agriculture companies Monsanto, Dow and Bayer. 




Michael Taylor at FDA is a perfect example.






Taylor is the Deputy Commission for Foods for the Food and Drug Administration. Over his career he has jumped from the FDA to a law firm representing Monsanto (where he worked specifically for Monsanto), back to the FDA, over to the United States Department of Agriculture, back to the law firm, over to Monsanto, to a think tank, to a university and back to the FDA.





During his second tenure at the FDA the agency’s policies regarding GMOs were changed to allow them pass without scrutiny.







GMOs are hazardous to the people and animals exposed to them, as I wrote here. Unfortunately, avoiding GMOs is becoming an impossible task.






GMOs got their start at a Monsanto plant in the backwaters of Louisiana. During the 1970s, Monsanto was one of the nation’s largest chemical companies. It has a patent on a product named glyphosate, which it markets as Roundup. Roundup is a weed killer, and since its weed-killing properties broke down quickly in the soil, farmers could coat the ground with it to kill the vegetation and then plant crops a short time later.






At the Louisiana plant, organisms that could withstand glyphosate were found growing in waste ponds. Scientists isolated and extracted the gene that gave them tolerance to the chemical and began placing that gene into soybeans and corn. The result is what is known as Roundup Ready crops: crops that can withstand repeated sprayings of Roundup during the growing season.







But glyphosate is now showing up in ground water in unhealthy levels miles removed from the farms at which it is used. Traces are even being found in the urine of city dwellers. It also crosses the placental barrier and is found in the blood of unborn children.







The technology used to make crops Roundup Ready has evolved to where pesticides are now also placed within seeds, making them resistant to the pests.








But these “advances” are having deleterious effects on nature. 



Just as increased use of antibiotics have begun creating antibiotic resistant “superbugs,” use of Roundup Ready crops is creating “frankenweeds” that are impervious to herbicides and use of seeds containing pesticides are creating “frankenbugs” that withstand and even thrive on the plants. 



But it’s decimating the populations of the pollinators. 



It has led to colony collapse disorder and a world-wide shortage of honeybees, and has begun wiping out Monarch butterfly populations.








As I wrote here, Big Agriculture is engaging in agricultural terrorism in America.








The very American farmers that Big Agriculture is supposed to help and that the FDA and USDA are supposed to protect are increasingly being victimized. In addition to being able to withstand herbicides and pests, many GMO plants are designed to not reproduce. So rather than save a portion of the seeds for next year’s crops, farmers are forced to purchase new seeds each year. And the cost of those seeds is rising faster than inflation and far faster than the prices of the crops they produce.







But even farmers who reject GMOs are being victimized. Big Agriculture has won numerous multi-million dollar lawsuits against innocent farmers whose non-GMO produce was contaminated by pollination—either by natural pollinators or the wind—from adjacent GMO farms.








Other countries are recognizing that the harmful effects of GMO foods far outweigh any perceived benefits.







The U.S. and the European Union are currently negotiating—and have been for years—a free trade agreement. But the agreement is being held up by what the U.S. considers the EU’s “nonscientific” approach to food safety. In other words, the EU is rejecting GMOs and chickens cleaned with chlorine.








The EU has blocked imports of U.S. GMO corn and soybeans, poultry treated with chlorine dioxide, beef treated with lactic acid to kill pathogens and pork produced from hogs fed ractopamine, a leaning agent. The regulatory hurdles are infuriating U.S. farmers who see them as nothing more than protectionism for European farmers. In fact, it’s protectionism for European consumers.







In 2008, France banned the insect-resistant corn strain MON810 (marketed as YieldGard) following public protests. The ban was overturned by a French court in 2011, but last March the French government reinstated it. The EU’s Food Safety Authority overturned it again in May. Still, other EU nations have complete or partial bans in place.








Who else is rejecting GMOs? Russia, for one. Following the French study that showed that rats fed GMO corn over their lifetime developed massive cancer tumors, Russia’s consumer protection group Rospotrebnadzor said it was halting all imports of GMO corn until the country’s Institute of Nutrition has a chance to evaluate the study.








Peru passed legislation in April 2011 that banned GMOs anywhere in the country for 10 years. 




The worry there is that the introduction of GMOs will compromise the native species of Peru, such as the giant white corn, purple corn and the famous species of Peruvian potatoes. 





Anibal Huerta, President of Peru’s Agrarian Commission, said the ban was needed to prevent the”danger that can arise from the use of biotechnology.”





Despite the ban, tests conducted by the Peruvian Association of Consumers and Users found that 77 percent of supermarket products tested contained GMO contaminants.







Just last month the Kenyan Ministry of Public Health ordered public health officials to remove all GMO foods from the market and enforce a ban on GMO imports. Citing the French study, Minister for Public Health Beth Mugo said there were concerns about the safety of GMO foodsthat need to be addressed.








Indeed there are, but expecting the U.S. fascist system to address them is unreasonable. 




And as evidenced by the fraud surrounding the recent California Proposition 37 election, gaining ground against agricultural terrorism at the ballot box is impossible.





Consumers have to reject GMO foods and hit Big Agriculture in the pocketbooks. It’s all they understand. 





You can begin by downloading the non-GMO shopping guide here.









http://personalliberty.com/2012/12/17/some-countries-ban-gmos-but-not-the-united-states-of-monsanto/





AUSTRALIA CELEBRATES 30 YEARS OF R2E2 MANGO ....





30 years of mango magnificence






Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry Minister John McVeigh is encouraging Queenslanders to eat home grown mangoes this summer and appreciate the history behind each bite.




Today at the Brisbane Markets in Rocklea, Mr McVeigh celebrated the R2E2 mango’s 30th year with a few slices.




“Summertime in Queensland wouldn’t be complete without eating a mango or two,” Mr McVeigh said.









“We are the fruit bowl of the nation and the mango is an iconic Queensland fruit.








“Without a doubt one of the best varieties is our very own R2E2, which has become an international success story.








“The Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry (DAFF) have been breeding mangoes for a very long time, and in 1982 they struck gold with the R2E2.








“By crossing a Bowen and Kent mango, our researchers came up with a new variety with the same size seed as a Bowen but with a lot more flesh than other varieties.











“This year marks the 30th anniversary of the R2E2, which is now one of Queensland’s best exports thanks to its delicious taste and superior shelf life.







“In 1982, the R2E2 was first selected as a variety with great market potential.







“In 1991, it was released for commercial production and today is exported to more than 30 countries.





“In fact it’s been so successful, the R2E2 accounts for about 70 per cent of mango exports thanks to its large size, good red blush and longer shelf life.







“Customers love it in the Asian markets including China, Hong Kong, Singapore and Malaysia.







“Building on that overseas interest, Queensland company Emu Exports has established large orchards in Vietnam to ensure this Queensland variety is available year round.”








DAFF supports the mango industry with a continuing breeding program to help boost productivity and profitability.







About 7,000 ha of mangoes are grown in Queensland. 



The main production areas are in the Burdekin, Bundaberg and Mareeba regions.









Apart from the R2E2, varieties grown include Kensington Pride, Calypso, Honey Gold, Keitt, Kent, Palmer, Brooks, Keow Savoey and Nam Doc Mai.








The Queensland mango industry is worth an estimated $70 million annually. The harvest starts in North Queensland in late October and, in southern areas, ends in early April.








Australia’s proximity to Asian markets and world-class cool chain facilities and transport technologies means exported Australian mangoes reach their destination fresh and with a prolonged shelf life.









Storage tips


Unripe mangoes should never be refrigerated. Store them out of direct sunlight at room temperature for a few days until they ripen.



Once ripe, they can be stored in the fridge for two to three days before use.



Mangoes need to breathe—never store them in plastic bags.


Mangoes freeze really well. They can be sliced and bagged, or pureed and placed into ice cube trays.





Why is it called the R2E2? 



This particular variety takes its name from the row and position in the field of the original tree at DAFF’s Bowen Research Station.








Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry
The Honourable John McVeigh
17 December 2012




Publish Date: 17 Dec 12






http://www.mysunshinecoast.com.au/articles/article-display/30-years-of-mango-magnificence,28156